Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanmcdirmid | Hacker News Reader

40% of democrats didn't vote at all, that is why Hilary lost. Each candidate getting <25% of the vote coupled with 50% not voting, does not mean people voted for Trump so much as most just stayed home (apathy was the biggest winner in the election). The democrats don't have to win over Trump voters, they just have to convince people to vote at all.

View on HN

You realize that staying home was no less an intentional act than voting. Those Democrats who stayed home, stayed home to not vote for Hillary.

The most effective way to get those people to vote is to not have Hillary Clinton as your candidate.

Where does your certainty that people who stayed home would vote for Clinton come from?

Turn out numbers. The people who stayed home were mostly the same demographic that voted for Obama in the last election: Minorities, millennials. Trump didn't magically win over Obama voters, conversions were rare.

Yet apparently the vote ratio was not that great for Clinton in those demographics either - apparently even 30% of non-white voters went Trump, and what I've seen it was only slightly in favor of Clinton in that demographic too

Again, what makes you think that the people didn't stay because they sure didn't want to vote for Clinton?

(Disclaimer :I am not an US citizen, I identify with Bernie)

I would have never voted for Clinton, even if you paid me.

For as vocal as the never Trump people were, there was also a quieter never Clinton feeling across many groups.

Not voting tells you something too though. Here is the link to NPR article: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/10/501...

It totally does tell you something. Polling didn't get support for Trump wrong, it got support for Hilary wrong instead. The likely voters didn't vote.

I think something that might not always be mentioned is that voter turnout likely remains low because of the electoral college.

I only bother voting if there is a referendum or local politician I care about. Neither was true in this election. Living in Maryland I already knew Clinton would carry the state. So why go vote?

I bet there are people like that in deeply red states who feel the same. I bet voter turnout would be higher all around under a Popular vote scenario.

Voter turnout was still low in swing states are well, so I could be wrong. But I think at times people realize their vote is sort of pointless.

> Living in Maryland I already knew Clinton would carry the state. So why go vote?

I think it is helpful in these situations to extend your thinking to everyone else and see if you like the result:

1) My candidate has a big lead in my state so I won't bother to vote. 2) My thinking in 1) is rational and therefore lots of other people will think and behave the same way.

vs.

1) My candidate will only win if their supporters vote for them, so I will vote. 2) My thinking in 1) is rational and therefore lots of other people will think and behave the same way.

So which behavior will most likely lead to your desired outcome?

> I think it is helpful in these situations to extend your thinking to everyone else and see if you like the result:

I don't see how this is helpful. The calculus is obviously different between your state being carried 60/35 vs a 50/50 battleground.

Merely being aware of the tragedy of the commons won't make it go away.

Who said 'merely'?

Yep, literally every race on the ballot here ended exactly as it was expected to, usually with double digit margins. I voted, but I can see why this wasn't motivating for some people.

You could say the same thing about Trump voters....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com