There has not been an US presidential election where the president got more votes than the number of non-voters. If apathy won then it had won every single time.
That’s hardly the reason. If you had a multi-party system the voted would be even more spread out between the candidates which makes it even less likely for a candidate to get more votes than the non-voting population. However a multi-party system would significantly lessen the possibility of getting oligarchic control because you wouldn’t have to choose between 2 shitty options, you’d have to have multiple shitty choices for the shittiest one to win.
More people didn’t vote than they did for either candidate. Apathy won.
Means testing voting? What could possibly go wrong?! You do see how horrifically abusable that is, right?
There has not been an US presidential election where the president got more votes than the number of non-voters. If apathy won then it had won every single time.
Yes. And look where it’s gotten us. Oligarchic control
That’s hardly the reason. If you had a multi-party system the voted would be even more spread out between the candidates which makes it even less likely for a candidate to get more votes than the non-voting population. However a multi-party system would significantly lessen the possibility of getting oligarchic control because you wouldn’t have to choose between 2 shitty options, you’d have to have multiple shitty choices for the shittiest one to win.
The people who don’t vote don’t count on votes, period. Trump won with the popular vote.