Didn't know where to post this but man, I so get it.
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
595 points (85.2% liked)
Just Post
1250 readers
67 users here now
Just post something π
Lemmy's general purpose discussion community with no specific topic.
Sitewide lemmy.world rules apply here.
Additionally, this is a no AI content community. We are here for human interaction, not AI slop! Posts or comments flagged as AI generated will be removed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The electoral college system in America means that a certain number of electors are assigned per state. Most states electors are assigned on a winner takes all basis. For instance even in deep red Texas he only got 56% of the vote but was assigned ALL Texas's electors just like Harris received all California's electors. Electors are assigned by state not by population so you could theoretically win with as little as 1/3 of the vote.
We cannot basically ever change this via normal political process because the Southern traitors would lose votes and amending our constitution requires overwhelming not majority support.
There are approx 338M people in the US. Approx 85 M didn't get to vote because they were under 18 in November of 2024. Of the remaining 253M 77M voted for Trump 75 for Harris and 100M didn't vote.
Many of those who didn't vote lived in districts and states that were already decided in which those residents had no voice because of our broken system. A system that now endangers us and the world.
If you poll people the percentate that actually support Trump and his policies isn't the percentage of the vote he received, 48%, its 39%
You said 2/3 but its a hell of a lot closer to a third.
You assert that if the missing 100 million showed up it would make no difference in the outcome, so they were not showing tacit support? I remain unconvinced.
No. I'm saying that many not all were effectively disenfranchised by a system that would effectively give their votes to the opposing side no matter how they voted. For example blue voters in Texas.
You asserted that American's were collectively complicit because 2/3 voted for him. This isn't true. 48% voted for him. Voter turnout was furthermore suppressed by a system in which blue voters in red districts/states have no hope of representation. The actual support for Trump is actually only 39% of Americans.
61% of us are along the ride.
No, I know you are trying to argue in good faith, but I asserted that 2/3 supported, which includes not voting, regardless of defeatism. If the vast majority voted in opposition but still failed, there would be much more impetus for electoral reform, for example.
Failure to actively oppose at the polls is tacit support, even if itβs negligent. Disenfranchised votes are worth struggle.
25% of the population were under 18 during the election they cannot be said to tacitly support trump.
22% of people voted directly for Harris they directly opposed trump.
This alone is 47% of the population! This alone disproves your 2/3 narrative!
30% of the pop by not voting did not cast a tacit vote for Trump. Few countries have 100% voter turnout in any free country. A sane mathematical treatment of the situation is to assume that a sufficiently large sample is representative OR to ask people.
If 48% of voters voted for Trump we assume 48% of those who were adults in 2024 are responsible or 36% or we can ask people if they support Trump and we get 39%.
Most in the US aren't for our modern day nazis
2024 was the second highest voter turn out in history. Second to 2020. Trump lost the polular vote. You just dont understand what youre talking about.
After all votes were counted he won the popular vote by a small margin but bear in mind 100M literally didn't vote. Apathy is as big an issue as evil.
I'm one of the ones who did vote against him but I live in Los Angeles. In LA County, 2.4 million voted for Harris, 1.2 million voted for Trump, and 1.9 million didn't vote. (45 thousand voted for RFK, Stein or other fringe candidates.)
A million of those non-voters could have all voted one way, EITHER way, without changing the results. So what "tacit support" are you talking about?
The entirety of California'e electoral votes went to Harris. But the electoral college is unbalanced,
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/electoral-college-states-representation/
so our candidate got 9 fewer electoral votes than she would have if it were fair. And even if all 1.9 million Los Angeles non-voters had voted for her it wouldn't have changed a thing.
Should they have voted anyway? Yes, if only because of the local elections and propositions they could have had a voice in.
And California is one of the easiest, most vote-supportive states, which mails a vote-by-mail ballot and supplemental information packets to every registered voter.
But if someone didn't, I'm not going to ascribe some kind of blame or "tacit support" label to them instead of hearing their individual situation.