The 2024 US presidential election had been widely characterized as one of the most consequential political contests in recent US history. Although turnout was high for a presidential election – almost matching the levels of 2020 – it is estimated that close to 90 million Americans, roughly 36% of the eligible voting age population, did not vote. This number is greater than the number of people who voted for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
More than a month on from polling day, eligible US voters from across the country as well as other parts of the world got in touch with the Guardian to share why they did not vote.
Scores of people said they had not turned out as they felt their vote would not matter because of the electoral college system, since they lived in a safely blue or red state. This included a number of people who nonetheless had voted in the 2020 and 2016 elections.
While various previous Democratic voters said they had abstained this time due to the Harris campaign’s stance on Israel or for other policy reasons, a number of people in this camp said they would have voted for the vice-president had they lived in a swing state.
I’d be the one to argue …… I mean, fine if you really don’t see the point, but the reasoning on half of these people in the article is flawed. Either they were speaking out of ignorance or using excuses for poor citizenship, but when their reason contradicts reality, they should be argued
And even if you’re in a solid red or blue state (like I am), your vote counts. Maybe it won’t change the results but they do pay attention. At the very least we could always say the Democratic candidate would win the popular vote. Not this time.
If there’s ever going to be a chance at reforming the electoral college system, t starts by having the popular vote be consistently different from the electoral vote. From this election, there’s no reason for reform, because both had the same result
You say that yoyur the one to argue, but you made no argument. Why should someone in a solid red or blue state bother to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate that supports genocide? (I’m excluding other races here to keep it simple)
If you really like a candidate, then I can see voting for them even if you know your vote is ultimately irrelevant. But, if you justifiably hate both candidates, one marginally less, a lesser of two evils argument only holds weight when your vote might actually matter.
- There are quite a few more people in the article than the summary - I bet you’d also spot a bunch that give invalid reasons
- If your single issue is the atrocity in Gaza, both support that so it is not a valid decision. If you believe Trumps words, he’d make it worse.
- Your vote always matters, even if it’s the lesser of two evils. Even if it didn’t affect the results this time
You didn’t comment on the article, you responded to my point on a singular common justification.
Trump and Harris both support the genocide making (theoretical) me uncomfortable voting for either. If my vote might matter, then I would hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil. If not, then I’d rather signal my disapproval of both.
Saying that my vote always matters is a nice cliche, but you know perfectly well that in a bunch of states it’s just not true. If my vote put Harris over the top in Illinois, it’s an absolute certainty that she got destroyed nationally. So, even if my vote mattered, it wouldn’t matter that it mattered.
If the only real consequence of my vote is an impotent signal of approval, then not voting is an impotent signal of disapproval. That matters just as much, if not more.
