this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
-41 points (18.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7211 readers
382 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Uh huh, and how do those numbers compare to the number of eligible voters who simply didn't vote at all? Maybe the Clinton campaign should have just done better campaigning in those states, or offered a better platform.
You owe her your vote! How dare you expect her to try and earn your vote?
maybe, yes. but 2 bad things don't make one good thing.
Not in Electoral College and "winner takes all" democracies. You kinda have the option, but if a candidate is super evil, you have to switch to voting against them, instead of what would be nice.
If it's a democracy that forms coalitions, like many in the EU, for example, you can vote for what would be nice, so they can team up with others against the evil. This doesn't work in the US presidential elections, unfortunately.