The 2024 US presidential election had been widely characterized as one of the most consequential political contests in recent US history. Although turnout was high for a presidential election – almost matching the levels of 2020 – it is estimated that close to 90 million Americans, roughly 36% of the eligible voting age population, did not vote. This number is greater than the number of people who voted for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.

More than a month on from polling day, eligible US voters from across the country as well as other parts of the world got in touch with the Guardian to share why they did not vote.

Scores of people said they had not turned out as they felt their vote would not matter because of the electoral college system, since they lived in a safely blue or red state. This included a number of people who nonetheless had voted in the 2020 and 2016 elections.

While various previous Democratic voters said they had abstained this time due to the Harris campaign’s stance on Israel or for other policy reasons, a number of people in this camp said they would have voted for the vice-president had they lived in a swing state.

  • Tinidril
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    You say that yoyur the one to argue, but you made no argument. Why should someone in a solid red or blue state bother to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate that supports genocide? (I’m excluding other races here to keep it simple)

    If you really like a candidate, then I can see voting for them even if you know your vote is ultimately irrelevant. But, if you justifiably hate both candidates, one marginally less, a lesser of two evils argument only holds weight when your vote might actually matter.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago
      1. There are quite a few more people in the article than the summary - I bet you’d also spot a bunch that give invalid reasons
      2. If your single issue is the atrocity in Gaza, both support that so it is not a valid decision. If you believe Trumps words, he’d make it worse.
      3. Your vote always matters, even if it’s the lesser of two evils. Even if it didn’t affect the results this time
      • Tinidril
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        You didn’t comment on the article, you responded to my point on a singular common justification.

        Trump and Harris both support the genocide making (theoretical) me uncomfortable voting for either. If my vote might matter, then I would hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil. If not, then I’d rather signal my disapproval of both.

        Saying that my vote always matters is a nice cliche, but you know perfectly well that in a bunch of states it’s just not true. If my vote put Harris over the top in Illinois, it’s an absolute certainty that she got destroyed nationally. So, even if my vote mattered, it wouldn’t matter that it mattered.

        If the only real consequence of my vote is an impotent signal of approval, then not voting is an impotent signal of disapproval. That matters just as much, if not more.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          Trump and Harris both support the genocide making (theoretical) me uncomfortable voting for either.

          Theoretical you and a bunch of real people just didn’t give a shit about the fact that Trump is going to add domestic genocide to the agenda. Theoretical you was told directly by Trump himself that immigrants were “vermin” and “criminals” and he was going to get them all on the track to deportation on day one. Theoretical you should have taken a few seconds to put two and two together and realize that means concentration camps and anyone with darker skin being suspected.

          But even if theoretical you is one of those darker-skinned people, you thought, “well he’s not going to put me in a concentration deportation camp, so I don’t have to worry about that while there’s a genocide happening on the other side of the world that both candidates support.”

          It’s pretty fucking heartless of theoretical you and all the actual people who didn’t give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves, but liked to pretend they cared by pretending that the one genocide was the only genocide.

          • Tinidril
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            I’m certainly convinced that you are a Democrat. I can tell because you ignored what I said and gave the rant you wanted to give, completely oblivious to the fact that none if it applies to what I said. You can’t get any more Democratic than that. Scolding voters is not a great strategy.

          • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            18 hours ago

            You’re ignoring the fact that this person clearly would have voted for Harris if they were in a swing state. Harris did not lose Illinois and this person got to avoid getting blood on their hands via voting for perpetuation of genocide. That sounds far more ethical and rational than just knee jerk voting no matter what.