Hillary and The Donald BOTH lost - "Didn't Vote" won!

[Cow Poke]

This has, by all accounts, been a really weird election. Some people on Tweb - especially considering the popular vote / electoral college vote disparity - make assumptions about this election based on previous elections.

Here's an interesting take, however, considering there were MILLIONS of people who disliked BOTH candidates so much they didn't vote - and people who 'held their nose' and voted 'for' one candidate because they didn't want the other candidate to win.



In the "electoral map" below, the "candidate" named "Did Not Vote" wins the electoral map handily.

did not vote.gif

[Mountain Man]

Isn't it normal for around half of eligible voters to not bother voting?

[JimL]

This has, by all accounts, been a really weird election. Some people on Tweb - especially considering the popular vote / electoral college vote disparity - make assumptions about this election based on previous elections.

Here's an interesting take, however, considering there were MILLIONS of people who disliked BOTH candidates so much they didn't vote - and people who 'held their nose' and voted 'for' one candidate because they didn't want the other candidate to win.



In the "electoral map" below, the "candidate" named "Did Not Vote" wins the electoral map handily.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19758[/ATTACH]

Only if the non-voters consider that ending up with a President Trump is a win. The majority of non-voters were apparently democrats who lost by very slim margins in key states such as Fl., Pa., and MI so I'm guessing that they are now ruing their decision to stay home. Elections have consequences, so overconfident, complacent democrats have no one but themselves to blame for allowing this catastrophe to occur. Let the chaos begin!

[Cow Poke]

Only if the non-voters consider that ending up with a President Trump is a win. The majority of non-voters were apparently democrats who lost by very slim margins in key states such as Fl., Pa., and MI so I'm guessing that they are now ruing their decision to stay home. Elections have consequences, so overconfident, complacent democrats have no one but themselves to blame for allowing this catastrophe to occur. Let the chaos begin!

There's just far too much dumb in this to take time to respond.

[Ana Dragule]

There's just far too much dumb in this to take time to respond.

If you take out the calling President Trump a catastrophe, is it still too much dumb?

[Terraceth]

In the "electoral map" below, the "candidate" named "Did Not Vote" wins the electoral map handily.

This is likely true for most if not all presidential elections, though. It's usually around 50-60% of the electorate who votes in the election (I think the highest within the last 100 years was in 1960, which was about 63%). When you're getting at least 40% of the vote in a three-way race, you're going to win quite frequently.

[Cow Poke]

This is likely true for most if not all presidential elections, though. It's usually around 50-60% of the electorate who votes in the election (I think the highest within the last 100 years was in 1960, which was about 63%). When you're getting at least 40% of the vote in a three-way race, you're going to win quite frequently.

I don't know - the authors seemed pretty sure this was more notable than in the past. Some other facts they cited...

[Cow Poke]

If you take out the calling President Trump a catastrophe, is it still too much dumb?

Yes.

[Terraceth]

I don't know - the authors seemed pretty sure this was more notable than in the past. Some other facts they cited...

After doing some more math, I'm pretty sure "Did Not Vote" might have won every election in the last century, maybe even more going back.

It's tricky to tell for sure because it requires a time-consuming analysis of every single state of each election. But let's remember that to win the election, someone only needs to win 11 states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey. In practice this is quite rare outside of complete landslide elections due to California and New York being so reliably Democrat and Texas being so reliably Republican, but it means if you win those 11 states, you win the election. So really, if we can determine Did Not Vote won those states, we don't have to figure it out for all of the other states.

Now, let's look at the 2012 election. I don't know the voter rate per state, but the average nationwide was 54.9%. So let's assume all these states had higher than average turnout and had 60% of the people vote. Now, the strongest margin any candidate won those states at was Obama winning 63% of New York. But under this paradigm of including Did Not Vote (which took 40%), we see that Obama only got 60% of that, which is 37.8%, less than the 40% that Did Not Vote get. That means that Did Not Vote won all 11 of those states, winning the election as well. I'd expect we'd see similar results for the previous elections--and even if Did Not Vote didn't win all 11 of those states, it could easily make it up with other states. So again, I'd actually be unsurprised if Did Not Vote won every single election in the last century or so.

[Cow Poke]

After doing some more math, I'm pretty sure "Did Not Vote" might have won every election in the last century, maybe even more going back.

It's tricky to tell for sure because it requires a time-consuming analysis of every single state of each election. But let's remember that to win the election, someone only needs to win 11 states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey. In practice this is quite rare outside of complete landslide elections due to California and New York being so reliably Democrat and Texas being so reliably Republican, but it means if you win those 11 states, you win the election. So really, if we can determine Did Not Vote won those states, we don't have to figure it out for all of the other states.

Now, let's look at the 2012 election. I don't know the voter rate per state, but the average nationwide was 54.9%. So let's assume all these states had higher than average turnout and had 60% of the people vote. Now, the strongest margin any candidate won those states at was Obama winning 63% of New York. But under this paradigm of including Did Not Vote (which took 40%), we see that Obama only got 60% of that, which is 37.8%, less than the 40% that Did Not Vote get. That means that Did Not Vote won all 11 of those states, winning the election as well. I'd expect we'd see similar results for the previous elections--and even if Did Not Vote didn't win all 11 of those states, it could easily make it up with other states. So again, I'd actually be unsurprised if Did Not Vote won every single election in the last century or so.

Maybe so. You're much more diligent in this than I am.

[Teallaura]

I don't know - the authors seemed pretty sure this was more notable than in the past. Some other facts they cited...

...

• Washington DC is the only area in the country where a majority of all eligible voters (whether they voted or not) voted for Clinton (90% of voters, voted for Clinton on a 55.7% turnout). In the other 6 states listed above, victories were simple pluralities.

Um, what?

[Mountain Man]

Um, what?

Voter fraud?

[Ana Dragule]

Yes.

What is dumb about it? We're most non-voters not democrats or are you saying they were likely not simply overconfident?

[Cow Poke]

What is dumb about it? We're most non-voters not democrats or are you saying they were likely not simply overconfident?

I was responding to Jimmy....

There's just far too much dumb in this to take time to respond.

I responded all I intend to.

[Ana Dragule]

I was responding to Jimmy....

Yes, on a public thread. I saw that.

I responded all I intend to.

Pity. I really was at a loss for what was so stupid and was interested in your thoughts.