You’re assuming the amount of people that signed their little pointless petition is 1:1 with those that actually protest voted because memes told them to.
You are making the claim that it’s an insignificant amount.
Are you making the claim that all 120mn that didn’t vote were protesters?
Likewise, you cannot make the claim that an entire group is something. You need proof to substantiate your positive claim, not the negative. I have given my proof already
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Please point out anywhere that I said all non voters are protest voters. I’ll give you a second.
Oh look at that, I never said that. I simply said that protest voters didn’t vote. Here’s a fun fact, some protest voters also voted third party.
Protest voters didn’t vote. That’s what I said and that’s not something you can prove didn’t occur. You are attacking a strawman. Something that is known as fact does not bare the burden of proof.
But I’ll give you proof. Do you want to know how I know protest voters didn’t vote for Red or Blue? It’s simple. It’s because they didn’t vote.
And as another person pointed out the protest voters accounted for about 10% on the non voters. Which, and I’ll just go ahead and tell you, is a significant percentage.
So I calculated the eligible non-voting population from those links in a comment I made a few months back, and I came up with a little under 90mn. In this thread, I took the non-voting percentage I thought I remembered (~36%) from those Ballotpedia articles, then multiplied that by the total US population (340mn). I should have multiplied it by the eligible population of about 255mn, which gives a little over 90mn.
Nonetheless, the same numbers from the University of Florida are in the Ballotpedia articles. Too bad Ballotpedia didn’t serve that information to you on a silver spoon. Seems like that’s the only way you’ll respond to evidence.
Please point out anywhere that I said all non voters are protest voters.
You said this:
Please share what you have that points to the protest vote being a small percentage of that 90 million.
And this:
You are making the claim that it’s an insignificant amount.
Both of these statements put you as the disbeliever to the argument, which means you believe that 1) protest voters were a large percentage, and 2) protest voters were a significant amount.
Once again, I have presented clear evidence of protest voters via the Noncommitted Movement. I’d welcome more evidence if you could demonstrate it, but you’ve failed in that regard. The numbers I presented are small and insignificant compared to 90mn, which means they don’t align with your apriori worldview. This is a problem for you, isn’t it?
I simply said that protest voters didn’t vote.
That’s the definition dumbass. No shit.
some protest voters also voted third party
Once again, that’s the definition of protest voting, and the Ballotpedia articles I previously shared indicate that the 3rd party vote was 1% of total voters. Do you think 1% is significant compared to 36%? Do you even know what significant means?
Do you want to know how I know protest voters didn’t vote for Red or Blue? It’s simple. It’s because they didn’t vote.
Protest voting means that voters declined to vote at the voting location, voted none or 3rd party, organized in a protest like the Uncommitted Movement, or submitted blank, null, or spoiled ballots.
In all of these cases except for organization, the voters handled the ballots and either returned them, declining to vote, or submitted them per the above.
Another case that you conveniently seem to be leaving out is that eligible voters might simply have chosen to not vote whatsoever, which does not meet the definition of protest voting. Abstaining from an election without showing up to a polling place does not count as protest voting. That’s a fact, by definition.
It’s simple. People that didn’t vote Red or Blue might just have not voted! You can’t automatically assume that all of those people were protesting! Well, if you’re an idiot I guess you can.
And as another person pointed out the protest voters accounted for about 10% on the non voters.
Noooo, that commenter highlighted 10% and assumed that all 8mn of those voters were protesters. That’s an assumption based on NO facts.
And based on your comment here, where you took that assumption as fact, I’m highly inclined to believe that you are an idiot.
Which, and I’ll just go ahead and tell you, is a significant percentage.
You’re assuming the amount of people that signed their little pointless petition is 1:1 with those that actually protest voted because memes told them to.
I have evidence of at least 700k protesters.
What evidence do you have?
It’s common knowledge that protest voters didn’t vote. It’s even in the name. You are making the claim that it’s an insignificant amount.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. That’s you, buddy.
Are you making the claim that all 120mn that didn’t vote were protesters?
Likewise, you cannot make the claim that an entire group is something. You need proof to substantiate your positive claim, not the negative. I have given my proof already
I don’t know where you get the 120 from, but that’s also not the claim I’m making.
Keep up:
https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections
All non-voting eligible voters != Protest voters.
There can be more motivations than just dissatisfaction with the choices on the ballot.
You as equating the two. You are wrong.
I don’t see 120m anywhere in those links.
Here is where the 90m that every other person besides you uses.
How Many People Didn’t Vote in the 2024 Election? | National News | U.S. News https://share.google/ghmqy7n78oe6kwvkR
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Please point out anywhere that I said all non voters are protest voters. I’ll give you a second.
Oh look at that, I never said that. I simply said that protest voters didn’t vote. Here’s a fun fact, some protest voters also voted third party.
Protest voters didn’t vote. That’s what I said and that’s not something you can prove didn’t occur. You are attacking a strawman. Something that is known as fact does not bare the burden of proof.
But I’ll give you proof. Do you want to know how I know protest voters didn’t vote for Red or Blue? It’s simple. It’s because they didn’t vote.
And as another person pointed out the protest voters accounted for about 10% on the non voters. Which, and I’ll just go ahead and tell you, is a significant percentage.
So I calculated the eligible non-voting population from those links in a comment I made a few months back, and I came up with a little under 90mn. In this thread, I took the non-voting percentage I thought I remembered (~36%) from those Ballotpedia articles, then multiplied that by the total US population (340mn). I should have multiplied it by the eligible population of about 255mn, which gives a little over 90mn.
Nonetheless, the same numbers from the University of Florida are in the Ballotpedia articles. Too bad Ballotpedia didn’t serve that information to you on a silver spoon. Seems like that’s the only way you’ll respond to evidence.
You said this:
And this:
Both of these statements put you as the disbeliever to the argument, which means you believe that 1) protest voters were a large percentage, and 2) protest voters were a significant amount.
Once again, I have presented clear evidence of protest voters via the Noncommitted Movement. I’d welcome more evidence if you could demonstrate it, but you’ve failed in that regard. The numbers I presented are small and insignificant compared to 90mn, which means they don’t align with your apriori worldview. This is a problem for you, isn’t it?
That’s the definition dumbass. No shit.
Once again, that’s the definition of protest voting, and the Ballotpedia articles I previously shared indicate that the 3rd party vote was 1% of total voters. Do you think 1% is significant compared to 36%? Do you even know what significant means?
Protest voting means that voters declined to vote at the voting location, voted none or 3rd party, organized in a protest like the Uncommitted Movement, or submitted blank, null, or spoiled ballots.
In all of these cases except for organization, the voters handled the ballots and either returned them, declining to vote, or submitted them per the above.
Another case that you conveniently seem to be leaving out is that eligible voters might simply have chosen to not vote whatsoever, which does not meet the definition of protest voting. Abstaining from an election without showing up to a polling place does not count as protest voting. That’s a fact, by definition.
It’s simple. People that didn’t vote Red or Blue might just have not voted! You can’t automatically assume that all of those people were protesting! Well, if you’re an idiot I guess you can.
Noooo, that commenter highlighted 10% and assumed that all 8mn of those voters were protesters. That’s an assumption based on NO facts.
And based on your comment here, where you took that assumption as fact, I’m highly inclined to believe that you are an idiot.
Do you even know what significant means?