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.

  • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    14 days ago

    One guy said this “VP Harris failed to demonstrate she was ethically or intellectually capable of executing the office, repeatedly failing to detail out her policies…" It’s infuriating that people continue to believe Harris never detailed her policies despite the fact that all she talked about was policy. All they had to do was pay attention to her and she would talk about her policies, it seems like they just didn’t want to even pay attention to her. Or that because she didn’t detail alllll of her policies then that wasn’t enough. Add on that this person calls her intellectually incapable of talking about her policies, basically calling her stupid and it’s just exhausting.

    This whole article continues to make me believe in the fundamental problem with Democrat voters which so many people have shown. The democrats have to run the perfect candidate with the perfect policies or the charisma of Obama who promise the world, while the Republicans can run a guy who says immigrants are eating cats and dogs and because the Democratic candidate wasn’t perfect, the Republicans win.

    And then when the Democrats do promise signficant change and it doesn’t immediately happen, Democrat voters punish them for it, they lose the midterms, and any change that was in the process of happening gets stopped dead. But when Republicans promise the world and don’t deliver, Republican voters reward them for simply promising it.

    “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”

    • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      Institutional vs anti institutional. Dems are institutional and the institution sucks. Trump is a sledgehammer. He promised alot of sledgehammering. Not good, but that’s irrelevant. The Dems need to stop protecting the broken system of neo liberal economics that fucking Regan invented and chasing the phantom center right vote.

      Aka. swing left or die.