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.

  • JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I blame my peers who didn’t vote just as much as my peers who voted for Trump for what is to come.

    I’m done giving a shit. We had a chance to stop this, and we sat on our ass.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    7 hours ago

    “The Dems are out of touch on social issues, and have tacked too far to the left to appease a minority of progressives.”

    Asshole.

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I think there are a lot of progressives, but I think not enough of them live in swing states. I’m one, and I know there are some around in the college crowd. When Michigan went blue trifecta in 2022, I thought the pendulum was swinging, but now it looks like I was wrong.

      This guy might be an asshole, but I’m not certain that he’s wrong.

    • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Is even easier than that. They will mail the ballot to your house months in advance and you can study everything especially all local initiatives and then mail it back at your leisure and people still don’t do that. It’s madness.

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      We need laws that make it illegal to spread election misinformation. We can’t function as a society with this level of manipulation and outright falsities. Nobody knows what is up or down anymore and this is just the start of what AI and propaganda news media are gonna make possible in the very near future.

        • fluxion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Internationally recognized 3rd party committee with elected members and strict regulations on conflicts of interests would be one option.

          Or just stick with the current dumpster fire that could not possibly get any worse. (Well i suppose it could, and will)

          • Thistlewick@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 hours ago

            To be fair, Australia doesn’t have it much better with misinformation. If a Labor (left-ish) government is in power, you can bet your arse that the papers will have a front page article every week on some screw up, no matter how minor. But when the Liberals (right) get in… crickets.

            I would love some third party, but I fear that faith in any body like that is wearing thin. When the UN won’t stand up to its war-mongering members, I don’t think some org telling Trump not to call Biden a pedo is going to achieve much.

            • fluxion@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Honestly I’m speaking more about rebuilding from the ashes once everything burns. Sort of like how UN, NATO, and the beginnings of the EU were only made possible through extreme circumstances. Hopefully not that extreme, but this country is going to endure turmoil that I don’t think most Americans are ready for.

              But maybe if we survive it we’ll be more willing to assess the circumstances that lead us there and take real and drastic action to prevent it from happening again. Or not… But I don’t want to give up hope completely.

              • Rebuilding from the ashes hey? Isnt that what the communists and the techbros want?

                I find it ironic that we started with government havih a stranglhold of mainstream media propagandising everyone and now that we have the internet any anyone can run their propaganda (equallity of free speach) suddenly we now have to worry about propaganda.

                Isnt the whole point that in the marketplace of ideas the best ones continue and the worste ones die? Is that not exactly what a platform like lemmy is?

                • fluxion@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Yes, burn like our newly-elected leaders have essentially promised. Are you offended that I’m acknowledging that reality?

                  And no, the internet won’t let truth ring out to the world. I thought the same when I was a wee lad too. The information superhighway. The end of oppressive government censorship.

                  The Information Age.

                  But no, maybe it’s not apparent in your neck of the woods yet, but it is here, and China, and Russia, and countless other backsliding nations: the Internet wasn’t our saviour, and bad ideas don’t naturally die if they are pushed to the masses. They thrive.

                  Lying trolls are downvoted on lemmy, we don’t give free passes and call everything “free speech” and remove voting buttons so we don’t hurt feelings. But sites like X where there is much larger reach don’t even offer that level of self-regulation. Bad ideas are boosted purposely and relentlessly. News channels have degraded to similar levels under increasingly partisan private ownership.

                  The Disinformation Age.

                  But between relentlessly spreading Trump talking points, one thing partisan networks like Fox News and OAN refused to push were claims about rigged voting machines, even when interviewing Trump in person.

                  Because they got sued. And lost. Badly and expensively.

                  Because libel has always been illegal in this country. Because we all inherently understand that free speech does not cover spreading blatant lies about people/companies.

                  But no person/entity pursues this in scale against even the most egregious far-reaching examples. Like when Musk boosts an article to millions claiming the MAGA nutjob who tried to beat Nancy Pelosi’s husband to death was his gay lover. Nothing. When Trump continues to declare the Democrats stole the 2020 election despite it being settled by every court case. Nothing.

                  Despite having provenly effective tools to keep people honest we’ve let things degrade to the point where nobody even needs to give a second thought as to whether they are expressing an opinion or just slandering/manipulating people because we are afraid that calling out blatant lies is violating “free speech”. Meanwhile a fascist regime abuses that to dismantle our democracy, frequently threatens any press who speak against them, threatens to jail prosecutors who cross them while performing their duties, political opponents who don’t bend to their will. And if that’s the case, then our democracy will burn, and then we’ll see what not having “free speech” really looks like.

                  There was a time in this country when we had policies like the Fairness Doctrine, upheld by the Supreme Court, enforced by the FCC, where bias in media was actually regulated. Throughout the most prosperous time in this country, from the late 1940s until, like many things that began our rapid decline, Reagan killed it.

                  Now even leveraging the much weaker tools remaining, in the face an existential threat to our democracy, is seen as some radical idea.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    “What is the point [of voting]?,” he asked. “Aside from a handful of weaponized issues, the parties are nearly identical. They both hate the poor and serve only their donors.”

    We can yell at them that the handful of issues should matter enough, or we could actually try to get a popular candidate past the party itself and I to the general.

    But shit isn’t going to change until we all admit the DNC isn’t automatically on our side. I’m more hopeful than I should be for the DNC election in February, but I’m ready to be disappointed.

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I really wish we had a unified left because there are enough of us to make a serious push to take over the party, but we’re too interested in bickering amongst ourselves

      • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        to make a serious push to take over the party

        No theres not. This is the effect of the lemmy echo chamber. America is A LOT more conservative than ppl here like to admit. The actual left of the Democratic party are ppl like Bernie and AOC and they’re definitely not celebrated inside the DNC

        too interested in bickering amongst ourselves

        That’s because three Democratic party is a coalition of liberals and conservatives

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Surprised not to see some self-unaware someone arguing that this position is somehow too far to the right or something

  • DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The large number of eligible non-voters is primarily a result of those individual’s responses to propaganda. This did not happen by accident. I don’t blame the person that got conned, I blame those running the con job.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Not according to the article. Lots of voters in solid red or blue states didn’t see a point, and who am I to argue. Thanks to gerrymandering, this is often true even for local races. Why vote for a party that supports genocide when your vote is nothing but virtue signaling for a party bereft of virtue?

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        I’d be the one to argue …… I mean, fine if you really don’t see the point, but the reasoning on half of these people in the article is flawed. Either they were speaking out of ignorance or using excuses for poor citizenship, but when their reason contradicts reality, they should be argued

        And even if you’re in a solid red or blue state (like I am), your vote counts. Maybe it won’t change the results but they do pay attention. At the very least we could always say the Democratic candidate would win the popular vote. Not this time.

        If there’s ever going to be a chance at reforming the electoral college system, t starts by having the popular vote be consistently different from the electoral vote. From this election, there’s no reason for reform, because both had the same result

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          You say that yoyur the one to argue, but you made no argument. Why should someone in a solid red or blue state bother to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate that supports genocide? (I’m excluding other races here to keep it simple)

          If you really like a candidate, then I can see voting for them even if you know your vote is ultimately irrelevant. But, if you justifiably hate both candidates, one marginally less, a lesser of two evils argument only holds weight when your vote might actually matter.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago
            1. There are quite a few more people in the article than the summary - I bet you’d also spot a bunch that give invalid reasons
            2. If your single issue is the atrocity in Gaza, both support that so it is not a valid decision. If you believe Trumps words, he’d make it worse.
            3. Your vote always matters, even if it’s the lesser of two evils. Even if it didn’t affect the results this time
            • Tinidril@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 hours ago

              You didn’t comment on the article, you responded to my point on a singular common justification.

              Trump and Harris both support the genocide making (theoretical) me uncomfortable voting for either. If my vote might matter, then I would hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil. If not, then I’d rather signal my disapproval of both.

              Saying that my vote always matters is a nice cliche, but you know perfectly well that in a bunch of states it’s just not true. If my vote put Harris over the top in Illinois, it’s an absolute certainty that she got destroyed nationally. So, even if my vote mattered, it wouldn’t matter that it mattered.

              If the only real consequence of my vote is an impotent signal of approval, then not voting is an impotent signal of disapproval. That matters just as much, if not more.

      • makyo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        You have it backwards - not voting because of a single issue is the real virtue signaling. Voting for the lesser of two evils is simply pragmatic.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          not voting because of a single issue is the real virtue signaling.

          You’re just making assertions, not arguments. You’re also not paying attention because this makes zero sense as a response to my argument.

          My entire point was that signaling is all than many voters can do because their vote is irrelevant. Skipping the presidential race is a signal too.

          Also, fuck referring to the mass slaughter of civilians as just a “single issue”.

  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 hours ago

    “It doesn’t matter” (and they’re right) is always going to be the number one answer. Very few states actually have meaningful voting rights with respect to the presidential election. Lower races are sometimes more meaningful, but even then they’re frequently forgone conclusions. The only votes I had that weren’t a forgone conclusion was some municipal ballot measures.

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      And yet doing something is better than doing nothing. Everyone can’t just assume that everyone else will do the right thing.