He got a plurality. He didn’t actually win more than 50% of the vote, and that’s only speaking of voters. If you count everyone he got something like 22% of citizens.
The point being made is that in a healthy democracy, voting is either very high turnout or mandatory, as in some countries. It’s also worth pointing out that getting 20% of all possible voters is an extremely weak mandate, and one of the norms we’ve been relying on is the idea that you don’t have the right to fundamentally reshape the country according to your preferences.
Didn’t he win the popular vote this last go around?
When talking about elections, only the people who actually voted are of interest
It’s obvious a candidate is not getting 50% of voters to vote for him if generally only 60% of the population votes…
He got a plurality. He didn’t actually win more than 50% of the vote, and that’s only speaking of voters. If you count everyone he got something like 22% of citizens.
But why would I count everyone? In an election you can’t the people that voted, since those are the votes you can possibly get…
I thought winning the popular vote was getting the majority of the votes that was cast. Is that incorrect?
The point being made is that in a healthy democracy, voting is either very high turnout or mandatory, as in some countries. It’s also worth pointing out that getting 20% of all possible voters is an extremely weak mandate, and one of the norms we’ve been relying on is the idea that you don’t have the right to fundamentally reshape the country according to your preferences.
That’s why I’m not counting everyone, just the people that voted.
Winning the popular vote just means winning a plurality of the votes. He got more votes than Harris. Once you account for all the other candidates, though, his total comes out to less than 50% of all the people that voted. No one got a majority.
And in many countries if no one gets a majority there is a runoff. This is another structural problem that the US has.
Got it. Thanks for explaining.