Se qui (area di colore rosato) ci fosse un partito senza elettori, sarebbe il partito più forte
https://i.redd.it/6jcmw3t8fhee1.png
di gotshroom
Se qui (area di colore rosato) ci fosse un partito senza elettori, sarebbe il partito più forte
https://i.redd.it/6jcmw3t8fhee1.png
di gotshroom
14 commenti
Source https://katapult-magazin.de/de/artikel/wenn-alle-waehlen-verlieren-die-populisten
I wonder why people make such map and posts so often? I get that it says *something* about participation in voting, but it’s not like all the non-voters would prefer the same kind of alternative party. Plus it is heavily dependent on how fractured the existing party system is, i.e. how big the largest party is.
The assumption, that the people that don’t vote share a similar political share as those who do, is unproven. It’s reasonable to assume that there are a lot more government and constitution deniers among those who don’t vote. So I’m not sure if that would really work out. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a significant part go to extremes.
Also in parts of Europe, there has been a force to vote in not to distant history so I can see why people want to experience freedom by not having to vote.
PS: the source OP shared claims that if everyone voted, populists wouldn’t stand a chance. That’s what I referred to when I said „it“ wouldn’t work out. I later noticed that’s not part of the post directly. I did but mean to question the maths of larger number is bigger.
Some years ago, a well-known lawyer over here actually started the “Non-Voters Party”, trying to reach out to those non-voters. They promised to never vote in parliament. This was their entire election program:
> “We will never vote in parliament. The party makes the following three election promises:
>
> * We do 100% what we say
> * We will never make any concessions
> * We will not make any agreements”
It didn’t really work, though. The party got 6.025 votes, or 0.06% of the total votes. But I guess that wasn’t the goal. I guess it was to raise awareness about people not being involved in politics.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niet_Stemmers
https://www.parlement.com/id/vkbijo1bgnst/partij/niet_stemmers
Can’t find an English source for it.
Yeah, Fidesz really worked a lot to ensure 70% participation in elections
This value make no sense… yes, People with less money are less likely to vote
But on the other side, people don’t vote why they lie in a hospital or anything else, the don’t vote because of the current politic or because they have less money?
Yes, assuming they all voted for one party
Fun fact, voting is compulsory in Australia. People who don’t vote gets a fine.
According to the [Australian Electoral Commission](https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm), the turnout at Australian elections has never fallen below 90% since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924.
Belarus voted for their beloved leader with record 110 % turnout 🇧🇾🇧🇾🇧🇾🇧🇾💪💪💪
Sure, if they are all lumped together. I suspect this would immediately cease to be the case when you distribute them by separate reasons for not voting, though.
Man i wish we could make them a party because they are probably the sensible people in the middle who look to the left and look to the right and think “damn you both are fucked”.
Sweden was pretty close to turning pink last EU election. Although in national elections anything under 80% would be rare. I am quite surprised by Norway and Finland tho.
These people are just an algorithm away from voting far right parties in the next election.
Non-voters ( or blank voters ) are the weakness, for example in Belgium those votes go to the majority which doesn’t have to be big if there are a lot of non voters. It shouldn’t be an option.