●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byrsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
You have put our entire fucking economy into a tailspin because of whatever stupid reasons you had for voting for a senile felon who stole classified documents.
For fuck sakes get over your goddamn pride and admit that you fucked up so we can try to fix this shit. I know some of you think because you're old and retired you're untouchable and maybe you are. Right up until they stop paying for your pills. As for the rest of you when this bullshit costs you your job at 50 and you're completely unemployable
byAnonymous Coward writes:
You have put our entire fucking economy into a tailspin because of whatever stupid reasons you had for voting for a senile felon who stole classified documents.
For fuck sakes get over your goddamn pride and admit that you fucked up so we can try to fix this shit. I know some of you think because you're old and retired you're untouchable and maybe you are. Right up until they stop paying for your pills. As for the rest of you when this bullshit costs you your job at 50 and you're completely unemployable what the hell do you think is going to happen?
You are in the fuck around and find out stage. If you start panicking a little maybe just maybe your other elected representatives who still think they need your votes might move to put the brakes on the worst of this shit long enough for people like me to clean up after your mess
so - you disagree with the majority of what US Citizens want.
they overwhelmingly voted for Trump and Team.
So - if your "clearly" smarter then everyone - why aren't you President then?
you seem to know everything - and magically know Trump and Team are wrong....
byPleaseThink ( 8207110 ) writes:
There's around 245 million people legally allowed to vote in the USA. Of those, 77284118 voted for Trump. That's 31.5%. Harris got 30%. In no way did either get a majority. In no way did Trump get an overwhelming amount of votes. There are around 340 million US citizens, so by your claim Trump only had support from 22.7% of US citizens. If he had been honest about wanting to invade Greenland and turn Gaza into a luxury resort, that number would have been lower. Please, stop repeating bullshit you hear on TV. It just makes you look stupid and degrades the quality of this site.
Citations:
https://www.usnews.com/news/na... [usnews.com]
https://www.cfr.org/article/20... [cfr.org]
Parent
twitter
facebook
byBert64 ( 520050 ) writes:
Being eligible to vote and not doing so is basically casting an "i dont care either way" vote.
If the more than 30% of people eligible to vote who didn't bother had voted against trump he'd never have won,
bybsolar ( 1176767 ) writes:
Being eligible to vote and not doing so is basically casting an "i dont care either way" vote.
If the more than 30% of people eligible to vote who didn't bother had voted against trump he'd never have won,
Not wanting to support Trump doesn't mean wanting to support Harris.
In general, majoritary systems will often lead to a party obtaining a disproportionate amount of power compared to the actual support they have in the population. The US President election is a "winner takes it all" deal which will always lead to this disproportion.
byBert64 ( 520050 ) writes:
Not wanting to support Trump doesn't mean wanting to support Harris.
In a two party system you have to support harris if you don't want trump to win. Many people do exactly that and vote for who they consider to be the lesser of two evils.
If you consider trump and harris equally bad then you don't care which of them wins and don't vote.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bybsolar ( 1176767 ) writes:
Not wanting to support Trump doesn't mean wanting to support Harris.
In a two party system you have to support harris if you don't want trump to win. Many people do exactly that and vote for who they consider to be the lesser of two evils.
If you consider trump and harris equally bad then you don't care which of them wins and don't vote.
In the latter scenario if you consider Trump and Harris equally bad you don't vote, still doesn't mean you support whoever ends up winning.
Note that this doesn't mean the president is not legitimately elected: only that in fact the president's policies represents a surprisingly small minority of the population. Depending on how this power is being used, this can lead to tyranny of the majority [wikipedia.org].
byrsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
That puts the onus on the parties and it's not their fault per se. Specifically it's not the fault of the Democrat party.
The problem is winner-take-all. Winner take all voting inevitably creates a two-party system. Because if either of The two major coalition parties separates into third parties and whichever one didn't do that wins every election
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
That puts the onus on the parties and it's not their fault per se. Specifically it's not the fault of the Democrat party.
That's fucking twaddle. Everyone who was paying attention knows how they suppressed Sanders so that they wouldn't have to make any substantive changes. You know, the things that have to change for humanity to have a future like whether we keep jerking off the oil companies? Then in this election they toured with a fucking Cheney (have you looked at her voting record? she is NOT our friend) and that rapey fuck Clinton as if those things were going to help.
The root of the problem is Republicans continually at
byflink ( 18449 ) writes:
The Democratic party could focus on not being shit and doing something for the 30% who don't show up to vote because there is nothing for them to vote for rather than running right to try to win over to tiny sliver of conservative "independent" voters. So yeah I consider it to be their fault.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byorgangtool ( 966989 ) writes:
In a two party system you have to support harris if you don't want trump to win
That's only true if you live in one of the seven swing states. For the other 43 states, our votes just don't fucking matter.
byceoyoyo ( 59147 ) writes:
If only there was a way to vote for someone other than the two candidates that a couple of corporations told you you could vote for.
In Nevada 20,000 people voted "fuck 'em all."
No, the people who don't vote don't care enough to do so.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Being eligible to vote and not doing so is basically casting an "i dont care either way" vote.
Yes, those people are fucking stupid. Tons of people stayed home for ideological reasons, which is ignorant AF. The people I'm most mad at are the ones who didn't vote for Harris because of genocide. Would she have done anything to stop it? I don't know. Will Trump make it happen faster? Absofuckinglutely, and I shouted it from the rooftops but nobody listened. I'm seriously fucking tired of being right about Trump all the time. But I will forever have absolutely zero tolerance for nonvoters. They have a ri
byXylantiel ( 177496 ) writes:
Nope. If you live in a very blue or red state there is not a lot of reason to take time off to go vote if you didn't do so last time. Because of the vast difference in population density among states, and the fact that blue states on average have more people, there are more people who don't really need to vote in order to have their state's electoral votes go to the democrat. So the 30% for Harris known for sure to be more of an undercount of what people "want" than the 31% for Trump. There's a reason w
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
That's far larger than the sample size needed to judge the views of the entire population.
byDrethon ( 1445051 ) writes:
Based on the historic graph, both of Trump's election majorities were on the low end, more so 2016, but still: https://www.presidency.ucsb.ed... [ucsb.edu]
●urrent threshold.
●ent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...