481
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/dataisbeautiful@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 85 points 3 months ago

c/dataishorrifyinganddepressing

[-] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

Seriously! I had no idea so few people voted.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

If it makes you feel any better, the trend looks like more people are voting as time goes on.

[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

As crazy as it is, Donald Trump appears to have been the single largest motivator to vote in American history. Either him or Covid.

He has definitely motivated me to vote twice, and for the rest of my life I won’t miss an election. Seriously. I had voted before, but I’d sit it out if I was too busy or I didn’t particularly like either candidate.

I have happily voted for Mr. or Ms. Not Trump twice. Now I also have to vote for Mr or Ms Not Influenced by Trump every chance I get too.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

George Floyd too. 2020 definitely felt like the boiling point for a lot of things that centered around Trump in a 100% divisive way.

I did a protest vote in 2016 (my state has zero impact), but from now on I want to make sure the numbers show accurately who got the most votes.

[-] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 3 months ago

Very sad indeed, I will try my hardest to recuperate the DNV score.

[-] fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml 45 points 3 months ago

I would also like to see a similar graph for mid-term elections. Do the winners even get 10% of the eligible votes?

[-] MacStache@programming.dev 32 points 3 months ago

I've never understood why there is a voting system where the one with most votes can lose.

[-] meeeeetch@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

They usually justify it by saying it's to prevent the tyranny of the majority (two wolves and a sheep biting on dinner).

But a case could be made that it's a way to keep the elite entrenched.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Triasha@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

The founders were a gentleman's club. Which is basically a fraternity. They made up rules that made sense to a bunch of frat boy farmers with enlightenment libraries.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

I wouldn’t call them farmers. Partly because a variety of wealthy professions were represented and mostly because the ones who called themselves farmers didn’t do any farming, they forced enslaved people to farm for them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rarWars 32 points 3 months ago

The percentages for 2016 only add up to 97, and the 40% bar is longer than the 41% of 2012.

[-] Klaymore@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Maybe 3% voted for a third party, and because they aren't shown the other bars were expanded to fill the entire space

[-] rarWars 10 points 3 months ago

They could've done a little green sliver like they did for 1980.

[-] FurtiveFugitive@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

Just like the sub on reddit, the data in DataIsBeautiful apparently doesn't actually have to be beautiful.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Vlixz@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

Maybe a really dumb question and I'm not from the US but why did Hilary lose in 2016 when she had more votes than Donald Trump? That doesn't really make any sense to me

[-] LMagicalus@discuss.tchncs.de 49 points 3 months ago

Because we have this stupid thing called the electoral college. Basically, each state has a certain number of votes, based (roughly) on population (its a whole other issue), and the states' votes are cast for whoever won the most votes within their state (barring rogue electors and the few states that use proportional representation for votes.) Theres a total of 538 votes, and all that matters is winning more than half of them. This has made the winner of the popular vote lose the election 5 times (though in 1824, it went to the house of representatives for a final decision because no one had a majority.)

To summarize: not a dumb question, VERY dumb answer.

[-] Michal@programming.dev 18 points 3 months ago

It's funny that even even if the weight was distributed equally by population (it isn't), it's not based on number of people voted. so, in theory if only one person votes, their vote still has the same weight as the whole state.

That's my understanding anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Also to clarify further, the founding fathers created the EC specifically to override the popular vote, because they were afraid that land owning men might be too poorly educated to actually make decisions about our "democracy."

Really let that sink in. They probably would have opposed the expansion of voting rights to anybody.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Michal@programming.dev 11 points 3 months ago

Because in the US democracy every vote is equal, but some are more equal than others.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

We were supposed to be a representative democracy with one rep for every 33,000 Americans. When voting for president each state gets one vote per rep and one for each of their two senators.

A while back some assholes decided that 33,000 is too representative and we should have a fixed number instead. So now it turns out that Wyoming should get one rep for every 58,000 Americans so their votes are worth far more than a Californian's.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

People don’t vote, states vote. Semi proportionally to number of people, but it isn’t linear. This means that California gets 50 some odd votes and they all go to the democrats most of the time but Wyoming gets 3 (the minimum) despite it being smaller than many cities in population and they all go to the republicans basically every time. That’s why swing states are a thing that exists and matters. Back in the 00s Florida and Ohio were in the sweet spot of big and could go either way (insert joke about my girlfriend) but now they’re both considered firmly Republican states, meanwhile Wisconsin lost its Republican status and now swings as did Arizona. When people talk about texas possibly becoming a swing state as a big deal this is why, it doesn’t matter who gets the popular vote, texas is so big and serves as a counterweight to California and New York for the republicans that if the democrats win Texas without the republicans picking up several states that they never get, all of the swing states, or one of the two big hitters of the Dems then there’s basically no chance for them to win.

[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 24 points 3 months ago

Also worth noting: Republicans have only once won the popular vote since the turn of this century, in 2004 for George W. Bush's reelection, when he had both the incumbent advantage and was still riding the post-9/11 patriotism wave

or put another way, the democratic candidate have won the popular vote on 5/6 presidential elections this century

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

when he had both the incumbent advantage and was still riding the post-9/11 patriotism wave

And slandering John Kerry, actual veteran and protestor, with "swiftboating" horseshit.

W's media goons were some of the slimiest motherfuckers ever to darken Washington's marble halls.

[-] AdNecrias@lemmy.pt 5 points 3 months ago

It's funny because here being incumbent usually is a disadvantage because you get blamed by all the crap that's happening, even the little that isn't their fault.

[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 12 points 3 months ago

The median voter is woefully uninformed and largely votes on vibes and name recognition. Many fail to understand exactly what kind of power the president actually holds.

Personally I blame this in part on the death of journalism. Local newspapers keep going out of business which removes any accountability for local authorities, and the only way you know of anything happening is based on Facebook gossip dripping in all of the biases the individuals who are there when something happens. And the local news that still exists keeps getting bought up by larger entities that may or may not be politically motivated to try to sway opinions and set the conversation across the country. Or worse in some cases independent news outlets are simply threatened into not investigating or reporting on certain topics

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gingerlegs@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

Only a 7% increase after that nightmare.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 16 points 3 months ago

7% is enough to swing any election in history (the part of it that is shown on the chart)

[-] stalfoss@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

I think even more horrifying is that more people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016

[-] glizzard@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 months ago

This makes me kinda ill. Like I almost cried a bit looking over these numbers. And I’ve seen some shit.

[-] JCreazy@midwest.social 11 points 3 months ago

There should be a tax incentive for voting or something

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 29 points 3 months ago

Step 1: make voting compulsory

Step 2: move it to a weekend

Step 3: easy access to prepoll or postal voting for people who can't make it on the official day

Bonus step: change voting system to IRV, or even better, to something proportional like MMP or STV

There you go. America has a functioning electoral system.

[-] JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Step 2 is out it is in most countries in Europe. But honestly I like how it is in the UK. You vote on a Thursday and people have legally mandated time off during that day to go vote.

I feel like a lot of people would definitely vote if it gave them paid time off from their work.

If you move to a weekend then it comes off their free time and they might be away etc

Also free and no hurdles mail voting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thebrownhaze@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

We're going to need voter id

[-] czl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago

This guy is being downvoted, but voter id isn’t a bad thing. Like in a lot of easy things, it’s just that the US is backwards.

In Europe everyone gets national id, and that enables you to vote. It IS voter id, but since it’s not only easy to get, but mandatory, you can’t use it as a means to exclude groups you don’t like.

Get your shit together America.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

Or do it the other way around, the amount of money that the government can spend is limited by voter turnout.

Clearly if you can't get people excited enough to vote for your policies, you don't have a mandate.

[-] earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 months ago

Quick reminder: In Switzerland, we have the ability to vote on everything. We get educated like that from the early childhood on, that voting is important and necessary. Even with that concept, the average voter participation is between 40-50%. So even if you might think a lot of people are not voting - yes, true, but you will never be able to increase it much above 50% IMHO.

[-] Focal@pawb.social 21 points 3 months ago

In norway, the lowest voter turnout we've ever had is 75.4%

[-] earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 months ago

Fuck me, that’s awesome. Then Switzerland and the US are clearly doing something wrong. What is the average voter participation in Norway and how often can people vote?

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] khannie@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Australia has mandatory voting which is an interesting one. Quick search tells me the last turnout was nearly 90%.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] frickineh@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

I've always been of the opinion that if you don't vote, I don't want to hear a word complaining about politics, but I've really reached my breaking point with that bullshit. We've seen it over and over again how ambivalence leads to things getting worse for a lot of people (often including the ambivalent ones). At this point, I'm just cutting people off immediately when they start up and I know they chose not to vote. Shut the fuck up. If it wasn't important enough to go to the ballot box, it's not important enough for me to listen.

[-] ownsauce@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Should split this out by electoral college votes/states where the 'did not vote' could actually have made a difference. This is great info but also a bit misleading cause votes in swing states have more of an effect than increasing votes in deeply blue or deeply red states. The US president is not selected by a national popular vote. See on the chart how W Bush won the election but Gore had the popular vote, due to how the electoral college works.

Not discounting that more people should vote. I wish there were a national holiday in the US for everyone to get out and vote. But some votes matter more than others, depending on where you live, and this chart misses that nuance.

[-] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

There is a map like that out there, if I remember correctly like 40+ states had “did not vote” win…

[-] lol_idk@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
[-] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

W Bush didn't win the election due to how the electoral college works, he won it due to the corrupt supreme court. Not only did he lose the popular vote, he lost the EC as well.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SGforce@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

How many are illegible due to prior convictions?

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 months ago

The chart says it's only looking at eligible voters

But looking it up shows around 4.6 million were disenfranchised in 2022 because of convictions. In semi-good news, it's gone down recently in part because more states are starting to allow people to vote after they've served time. So if people keep pushing in other states, it can hopefully keep going that way

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
481 points (100.0% liked)

Data Is Beautiful

6916 readers
1 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz


(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS