this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
440 points (99.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6854 readers
462 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is what you voted for protest-non-voters.
Can we give this rhetoric a rest? The voting system, the enforced lack of alternatives, hell even really the people who voted for this shit are all much more to blame than people who didn't vote. Or how about the fact "Multiple Republican-led administrations removed voters from their states' voter rolls in the lead up to the election"? Or the fact you don't even vote on the week-end, which is what pretty much all civilised countries do, to give more chances to more people especially poor people to get to the voting stations?
On top of that, how can you know what people who didn't vote would have voted for? Some of the states with the lowest turnout are one that are historically considered more conservative-leaning (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Missisipi, Tennessee). The results could have been "worse" (whatever that means, given the shitshow that is the Electoral College).
Really, it feels like it's so much easier to blame a subset of people than to confront the fact that, in the US, the majority of the population appears to be for an autocratic asshat who has claimed they wouldn't need to vote after they vote for him. The US population, as a majority, appear to want this. More people voting may not have changed anything about that.
It's not surprising that voter turnout is now when you have an unhealthy democracy (because it is a symptom of it). This is a bit like blaming people for eating unhealthily when all that's available to eat is unhealthy: you're not wrong that it's bad for them, but what the fuck are you actually doing do provide better options? So rather than blame those who didn't vote, for any variety of reasons, get organising. Low turnout is a seed that was planted a long time ago.
Fuck no, no voting protest voters are part of the reason we have this sweeping fascist rule in our country. So no, they don't get a boo hoo pass on that shit.
The reason you have sweeping fascist rule in your country is because you have tonnes of people who are okay with that.
Seriously, you can blame those that didn't vote as much as you want, but you're just averting your eyes from the real problem, as far as I can tell.
No voting protest voters are a tiny proportion of the no voters.
90 million registered voters didn't vote, the most in US history. Please share what you have that points to the protest vote being a small percentage of that 90 million.
I'd love to see hard data, if it exists. Not holding my breath.
66% turnout rate in 2020 64% turnout rate in 2024
So about 8 million less voters. Let's assume there are all protest voters.
So less than 10% of non voters did so as a protest.
Thank you. 10% is a significant amount.
The bigger piece of the pie is the other 90%.
Statistically, 10% is significant.
That is not a phrase.
In the world of statistics anything over 5% is often considered statistically significant. How significant depends on context.
The phrase used in statistics is "p-values below 5% are significant".
This refers to uncertainty around a parameter value. Not the proportional sample size.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommitted_National_Movement
You're assuming the amount of people that signed their little pointless petition is 1:1 with those that actually protest voted because memes told them to.
I have evidence of at least 700k protesters.
What evidence do you have?
It's common knowledge that protest voters didn't vote. It's even in the name. You are making the claim that it's an insignificant amount.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. That's you, buddy.
Are you making the claim that all 120mn that didn't vote were protesters?
Likewise, you cannot make the claim that an entire group is something. You need proof to substantiate your positive claim, not the negative. I have given my proof already
I don't know where you get the 120 from, but that's also not the claim I'm making.
Keep up:
https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections
All non-voting eligible voters != Protest voters.
There can be more motivations than just dissatisfaction with the choices on the ballot.
You as equating the two. You are wrong.
I don't see 120m anywhere in those links.
Here is where the 90m that every other person besides you uses.
How Many People Didn’t Vote in the 2024 Election? | National News | U.S. News https://share.google/ghmqy7n78oe6kwvkR
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Please point out anywhere that I said all non voters are protest voters. I'll give you a second.
Oh look at that, I never said that. I simply said that protest voters didn't vote. Here's a fun fact, some protest voters also voted third party.
Protest voters didn't vote. That's what I said and that's not something you can prove didn't occur. You are attacking a strawman. Something that is known as fact does not bare the burden of proof.
But I'll give you proof. Do you want to know how I know protest voters didn't vote for Red or Blue? It's simple. It's because they didn't vote.
And as another person pointed out the protest voters accounted for about 10% on the non voters. Which, and I'll just go ahead and tell you, is a significant percentage.
So I calculated the eligible non-voting population from those links in a comment I made a few months back, and I came up with a little under 90mn. In this thread, I took the non-voting percentage I thought I remembered (~36%) from those Ballotpedia articles, then multiplied that by the total US population (340mn). I should have multiplied it by the eligible population of about 255mn, which gives a little over 90mn.
Nonetheless, the same numbers from the University of Florida are in the Ballotpedia articles. Too bad Ballotpedia didn't serve that information to you on a silver spoon. Seems like that's the only way you'll respond to evidence.
You said this:
And this:
Both of these statements put you as the disbeliever to the argument, which means you believe that 1) protest voters were a large percentage, and 2) protest voters were a significant amount.
Once again, I have presented clear evidence of protest voters via the Noncommitted Movement. I'd welcome more evidence if you could demonstrate it, but you've failed in that regard. The numbers I presented are small and insignificant compared to 90mn, which means they don't align with your apriori worldview. This is a problem for you, isn't it?
That's the definition dumbass. No shit.
Once again, that's the definition of protest voting, and the Ballotpedia articles I previously shared indicate that the 3rd party vote was 1% of total voters. Do you think 1% is significant compared to 36%? Do you even know what significant means?
Protest voting means that voters declined to vote at the voting location, voted none or 3rd party, organized in a protest like the Uncommitted Movement, or submitted blank, null, or spoiled ballots.
In all of these cases except for organization, the voters handled the ballots and either returned them, declining to vote, or submitted them per the above.
Another case that you conveniently seem to be leaving out is that eligible voters might simply have chosen to not vote whatsoever, which does not meet the definition of protest voting. Abstaining from an election without showing up to a polling place does not count as protest voting. That's a fact, by definition.
It's simple. People that didn't vote Red or Blue might just have not voted! You can't automatically assume that all of those people were protesting! Well, if you're an idiot I guess you can.
Noooo, that commenter highlighted 10% and assumed that all 8mn of those voters were protesters. That's an assumption based on NO facts.
And based on your comment here, where you took that assumption as fact, I'm highly inclined to believe that you are an idiot.
Do you even know what significant means?
So not only do you admit it was actually 90mn, like I said it was, you also want to insist on being right somehow and claim I can't find a number in an article you linked that is missing said number.
Holy fuck.
You are still pretending I said something I never did. I asked for proof of your statement. You provided zero proof that it was in fact a small percentage. If others, or yourself are assuming 10%, then I have news for you. 10% is a significant amount. Don't believe me? Start applying an extra 10% to anything of value or remove 10% of your paycheck. Hell, apply it to anything else not of monetary value, 10% more/less customers. 10% more/less of a metric a business is tracking. 10% more/less of profit margin.
Stop pretending like I said all non-voters were protest voters. Stop insinuating that I said that when you know I didn't and are trying to prove some weird fucked up point to absolutely no one. I'm not ignoring anything, you only think I am because this conversation is beyond you. I said x, you said y, stop acting like I also referencing z.
You strawman and now ad hominem. Congratulations are in order. I'm not retarded enough to keep up with you. Mark another tally on your whiteboard to track internet arguments you've won.