this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
67 points (100.0% liked)

Conservative

464 readers
51 users here now

We are a community dedicated to discussion surrounding the political right.

People of all political views are welcome here, but we expect a high level of discussion from everyone.

Rules:

-Good Faith participation only.

-Stay on topic.

-Follow instance rules.

-Only post news articles with the original headlines.

-Please interact with this community if you want to downvote.

-Absolutely no homophobia, transphobia or misgendering anyone.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

A plurality did not.

~77 milion out of 265 million - Trump

~75 million out of 265 million - Harris

~113 million out of 265 million - Nether

Getting a plurality of votes cast =/= a plurality of voters

It's how fascism has risen in the past as well. Chasing a minority of voters because they can win an election should be an alarm bell.

Every democratic system should engage a high turnout and require a majority, not just a plurality.

80% turnout should be a norm.

Personally I am in favour of mandatory voting, with the caveat that the bottom of the ballot should have a "none of the above" option. Australia gets a ~90% turnout.

Single Transferable Vote is the best election method as it avoids wasted votes in multi party democracies.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You're correct, a majority of people who voted voted for him, not a plurality. Way too many people, in any event!

[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Not even a majority of people who voted. A majority means >50%.

Trump received a plurality of voters who voted. Not a majority.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago

Thank you for the correction correction!

[–] hesh@quokk.au 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

if we believe their counts

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Personally I am in favour of mandatory voting, with the caveat that the bottom of the ballot should have a "none of the above" option.

If the difference was only 20% and the result of an election wasn't determined by a metaphorical a coin flip, I would agree.

With the way it is right now, doubling the voting pool using uneducated or apathetic voters turns the entire thing into a game of exploiting psychological biases into creating uninformed votes. That also happens to already be the GOP's specialty.

It's bad now, but that could make it even worse.