Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 1 day agoDefensive Votinglemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square386linkfedilinkarrow-up1684
arrow-up1684imageDefensive Votinglemmy.blahaj.zoneUriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square386linkfedilink
minus-squareFishFace@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·18 hours agoIf you’re a republican, abstaining is voting democrat.
minus-squarerothaine@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·5 hours agoIt’s not though. The fewer people vote, the more likely it is for Republicans to win
minus-squareRamenJunkie@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·15 hours agoYes, OP’s point is also that generally speaking Republicans are less likely to abstain.
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·15 hours agoNot in the same way that the inverse is true, no
minus-squareFishFace@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·15 hours agoMathematically it’s the exact same situation but flipped.
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·14 hours agoThis isn’t pure math, it’s electoral politics. Because the third parties in question this time (and most times) were spoiler candidates for the Democrats, a Republican abstaining does not necessarily mean +1 for Dems
If you’re a republican, abstaining is voting democrat.
It’s not though. The fewer people vote, the more likely it is for Republicans to win
Yes, OP’s point is also that generally speaking Republicans are less likely to abstain.
Not in the same way that the inverse is true, no
Mathematically it’s the exact same situation but flipped.
This isn’t pure math, it’s electoral politics.
Because the third parties in question this time (and most times) were spoiler candidates for the Democrats, a Republican abstaining does not necessarily mean +1 for Dems