[sgerenser]

Plurality, not majority. (Not that I’m excusing the dumb dumbs who decided not voting was a viable course of action when they decided that “both sides” were running bad candidates).

[Braxton1980]

"Both sides"

Both candidates weren't equally bad. That is always the situation and you must choose the least worse or best candidate.

[tomjakubowski]

With Trump getting a little bit less than half the vote and a 65% turnout, "did not vote" was the plurality.

[JumpCrisscross]

Which is functionally a vote for the status quo. Someone who can't bother to vote isn't going to bother e.g. protesting or otherwise affirming their rights.

[datsci_est_2015]

Or defeatism. Discouragement campaigns go a long way: “both sides are bad so don’t vote!”

[hedora]

So, in this case, "plurality" means "third place".

[Braxton1980]

Not voting is a choice and the same as voting for the winner

[justinclift]

> Not that I’m excusing the dumb dumbs who decided not voting was a viable course of action when they decided that “both sides” were running bad candidates

Sounds like both candidates were terrible enough that quite a few didn't bother?

[Braxton1980]

1.They weren't equally bad.

2. Not voting still results in one being elected. This isn't the same as being offered two foods you don't like and declining to eat either.

3. The judgment on the quality of the candidates is likely mostly based on misinformation and manipulation by others.