Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by light_hue_1 130 days ago
It's not misleading. I have no idea why people are voting this down. It's just a simple fact.

We have 3 parts of the federal government we can vote for: executive, senate, and house. Yet, the vast majority of people reading this have never cast a vote that mattered in any of those. I certainly have not.

Most states are not competitive when it comes to electoral votes. It doesn't matter if 100% of MA or CA comes out. Whoever is blue-colored will win those EVs. Beyond that, any other vote is worthless and won't change the outcome.

Most states are not competitive when it comes to the senate. Who wins in most races is predetermined by their color affiliation.

Most house races are the same. Many house races don't even have any meaningful opposition because everyone knows who will win.

It's even worse at the local level. Depending on the type of position 60-90% of races are uncontested.

Of course people don't turn out. For 85+% of people it doesn't matter.

> about 1/2 of citizens who are eligible to vote do not

I'm part that majority. No matter how many of me show up even if it was an unlimited number of people, there is literally nothing my vote can do to change the outcome. So yeah. Why waste the time pretending we're in a democracy?

We're in a rule by a tiny minority.

1 comments

I see. So by "cannot vote for" you meant "did not vote for". Thanks for clearing it up.
I don't understand if you're intentionally obstinate or just oddly brainwashed? I'll try one last time, in a simple sentence.

Cannot vote for means even if the entire result is tied and it hinges on one vote, my vote does not count under any circumstances; it can't change the outcome at all.

Is that better? 85% of Americans are literally in this situation.

So every time your side loses a vote is equivalent to "cannot vote for"? Interesting perspective.