Legit question for understanding...

Is it really a majority if more people didn't vote for the winner? Considering votes for other candidates and non voters, I think there's a message in that that shouldn't be overlooked.

Like maybe the people needing more choices. And the government not being run by one or two parties...

This is a non bias question, looking for thoughtful answers. Thank you.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Adogslife · 61-69, M

The two party system is designed to have checks and balances. That doesn’t mean there aren’t inherent flaws. But, in presidential election, the sum of a few minority candidates’ votes doesn’t equal a majority either. It just means there’s a lack of conviction amongst voters. That would be less true in the House of Representatives.

Also, a “majority” is somewhat misconstrued in a US election as it’s the Electoral College that determines a winner. In that system, except for Maine and Nebraska, it’s a winner take all system - a race to 270 votes (of 538). The 538 mirrors the structure of House, 435 Representatives, and the Senate, 100 Senators. The 3 additional electoral votes are for DC, which isn’t a state. So, it’s not the sum of individual’s votes tabulated for the nation to see who wins. It’s the sum of individual votes in a state that gives the state to a candidate who then strives to hit the goal of 270.