this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
84 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26230 readers
2388 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You make it sound like a new phenomenon; only 58% of the voting-eligible population turned out in 1980. 63% voted in 2024

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You make it sound like a new phenomenon

I certainly did not. Disenfranchisement is a tradition at least as old as democracy itself. FFS, we explicitly denied half the population the vote until 1919, simply because they weren't born with balls. But then they weren't "eligible voters" so even when they were flinging bricks through windows and roughly up state assemblymen to win their right to the ballot, they didn't count towards voting statistics.

If you want talk about turnout, nevermind "eligible". Consider we're a nation of 347M people, only 151M got handed a ballot. That's 43% not 63%. A full one in five Americans are entirely ignored by our political class.

But then again, if those last 20% were included, would you be happy with the people they voted for? So much of these "not enough people are voting" complaints I see drop off the radar as soon as their team starts winning.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

A huge chunk of the US population is either:

  • too young to vote
  • not a citizen There's a reason I choose to compare with voting eligible population
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

too young to vote

An arbitrary designation set by statute

not a citizen

An arbitrary designation set by statute

Again, you could say the same thing of women before 1919. Or slaves before 1870. Just pointing at tens of millions of people and saying "You don't count because we said so".

There’s a reason I choose to compare with voting eligible population

Because you're trapped in the same backwards headspace as Stephen Douglas circa 1858. Or John fucking Adams, trying to explain to his wife Abigail why nobody at the Constitutional Convention wanted their wives to participate.