“Didn’t Vote”
The 2024 election map if “Didn’t Vote” was a candidate in each state.
As Micheal Morre noted, the largest power block is the did-not-vote block. Imagine!
Facebook, Daniel Becker
Link to numeric provided by Angry Bear.
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
Imagine the message that could have been sent if all those disenfranchised people had voted third party…any third party candidate. The legitimacy of all those corrupt, senescent empty suits representing the billionaires would have evaporated.
@John,
The message that third party voters send is that they don’t understand how the American system works. In the end, the legitimacy of all those empty suits running as third party candidates evaporates and America gets stuck with the consequences.
Joel:
Your comment rings true. And the complaining is loud.
However, I also believe the biggest issue was with “our” candidate. That is not to say Kamala Harris was flawed. It is to say, that perhaps, many Americans were not ready to accept a woman of color as their president. Even if the candidate was extremely intelligent (which she is) and would have made a great president with different perspectives.
Kamala put Trump in his place during their first meeting. So much was he pushed back, he and Republicans would not accept another debate.
Biden having failed as a candidate was an issue.
@Bill,
I wasn’t making a point about what would have happened to those 3rd party votes in the last election if they hadn’t been wasted on 3rd party candidates. I’m not a fan of counterfactuals.
My point is that votes for 3rd party candidates are simply wasted votes. The only “message” it sends is that those 3rd party voters are unserious.
I say this as someone who voted 3rd party in 1980. It was dumb and I regret it. I learned from that and am wiser now.
In the US “first-past-the-post” system, only two major parties are sustainable. You can either vote for the lesser of two evils or stay home. Voting 3rd party is just staying home.
Not voting communicates disinterest; voting third party communicates dissent.
What better way to convey dissent in an electoral system bought and paid for by the 0.1%? Certainly not by voting for one of their two shills!
@John,
LOL! Yes, I know that’s the fantasy. I once believed that way, too. But then I grew up.
In the real world, there’s no daylight between voting 3rd party and not voting at all.
Actually in most states any vote for the two major parties has been a wasted vote, since the outcome was never in doubt.
Nothing was lost by voting third party…and a lot of good could have been done if a lot more people had voted for Nader in those states.
@John,
Actually, in all states, voting for one of the two major parties is the only way for your vote to count. Voting for a third party is a wasted vote. No good was done by voting for Nader–he was a gadfly, like all third party candidates. A lot more people didn’t vote for him because they saw that.
When a serious 3rd party candidate appears, you will know them by this sign–they will have spent years building up their party nationally, getting candidates in all 50 states to run on their party tickets. 3rd party candidates who only run by themselves for president every four years and disappear in between are just playing the rubes. I stopped falling for that. YMMV.
There really was not any third party votes. There were votes for mavericks such as Kennedy.
@Bill,
That nails it. They’re not “third party candidates,” they’re vanity candidates. There’s no 3rd *party.* If they were real 3rd party candidates, there would be an actual, you know, 3rd party behind them.
Ultimately, if a 3rd party candidate actually caught the car, it couldn’t do anything. You have to have a large number of people from your party in the legislature from your party in order to make laws. Nobody seems to think this through, but that’s how our system works (when it works).
Not really, as a number of the 3rd party candidates were clearly being propped up by the Republican Party as spoilers (Green, Natural Law, Cornel West being the most obvious).
Fraud:
Yes, to your point.
In 2020, the total vote was 158,614,475. An ~ 3 million voters were lost in 2024 and considered to be nonvoters at 155 million. Another difference was ~50,000 increase in voting for others (see above) totally an ~3.1 million. The election was decided by non-voters plus a small increase for others. Voting for others and nonvoting when the difference in candidates is extreme does not play out well for the nation as a whole. One article at Angry Bear can be found here.
Partial report
It would be interesting to see what ranked choice would have resulted in; since Trump did not win a majority outright, how many of the Green and Independent would have had Harris as their second/third choice ahead of Trump.
@Fraud,
Yeah, ranked choice voting would take us somewhat closer to a representative democracy, and is probably the only feasible change in our system. Getting rid of the Senate, making the House membership representative and getting rid of the electoral college would be better, but that can’t happen without amending the Constitution.
@Joel,
The fixed limit on the number of representatives (435) is simply a law, and that could be changed (Wikipedia lists it as Public Law 62-5 of 1911).
Perhaps if we had a representative primary system we might get a better quality candidate. The nation should be split into 6 to 9 geographical areas and have a “super Saturday” vote every few weeks. This way Iowa and New Hampshire, which in no way represents the typical American voter, would be the states that shrinks the field and provides front runners.
Thomas
Color me oblivious to your point of view. Can you expand it for this old guy? How would 6 or 9 geographical areas voting every few weeks make the election better and target better candidates? I am just curious and not picking on you.
Bill
I think the analysis that suggests third party votes are wasted is interesting because it isn’t hard to push that logic to say that voting for any losing candidate is a wasted vote. As an example, Harris voters in Wisconsin didn’t get anything more accomplished than third party voters. There were a lot of them compared with third party, but they had the same impact.
Trump won the state?
No votes are far more serious.
@Eric,
LOL! So your reasoning is that, once an election is called, the voters on the losing side wasted their votes? Seriously? In elections, the votes come before the outcome.
In 2025, Democratic voters ignored your reasoning and voted in red states and red districts anyway. What was the result?
“Democrats, buoyed by Trump’s unpopularity and a fired-up base, flipped 21 percent of all the GOP-held seats that were on the ballot throughout 2025.
“According to Bolts’ analysis, Democrats gained 25 state Senate and House seats that were held by the GOP, out of the 118 that were resolved this year in regular or special elections.”
https://boltsmag.org/legislative-elections-results-2025/
All I have to say about third parties is Pat Paulson. Google him
Ever notice how the hysterical reporting about Ford’s Pintos blowing up when struck from the rear never crossed over to hysterical, or any, reporting on the more frequently General Motors pickups with saddle-bag gas tanks exploding when t-boned, when struck from the side? Nadar wasn’t third party, he was an industry shill. Is still
There was a time, long ago, when this Old Logger voted Green and yes, it was a protest vote, a throwaway, cast in calculation in a state who declared for Clinton before the primaries. The dems are responsible for the End of the Pacific Northwest Timber Industry as the Rs. And that Russia-Lover is no damned socialist
Trump and that short guy with the big ears was a joke, which unfortunately is why we didn’t take him seriously
My compliments to the commenters: i’v heard stuff here I haven’t heard in 30 years …