• CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    29 days ago

    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.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        Having more options in a democracy is never a bad thing. When victory requires the deterioration of democracy, then democracy is already dying or dead.

        • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          27 days ago

          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.