> of the roughly 6 of 10 eligible americans who voted. are you just not understanding the (very simple) argument i'm making, or something? of americans eligible to vote, more abstained from engaging in the process than voted for either of the two major-party candidates. to put it another way, if each and every non-voter had actually turned up to vote, and voted for jill stein, she would have won the popular vote in a landslide. a plurality of americans, when posed the choice between independent candidates, kamala harris, and donald trump, and simply not voting... chose to not vote. you might think that's meaningless. i think it's anything but. > im saying their collective disengagement is a political outcome with real ramifications, whether you acknowledge it or not. you're misattributing nonparticipation as disengagement. you're failing to acknowledge that, in reality, people who choose to not vote are saying in a loud and clear voice > i'm cool with whoever wins > i don't have a strong opinion either way how do we know this? because someone has to be the president there is no option where nonparticipation creates an empty seat. so, you either feel strongly enough to vote for or against someone, or you tacitly endorse all candidates equally. there is no objection vote, anon. the vast majority of people are either pro-trump or tacitly endorsed him. he has a clear mandate.
United States