“Democracy” Wins Again … by Silencing Most People

The ill of the people

N.B. All data for 2024 are current as of 11/9/24 but will likely change over time.

Earlier this year, I wrote about the specious idea that democracy, especially on the federal level, somehow represents the will of the people or suggests any type of a mandate for action by the elected. Of course, then came the most important election of our lifetimes—the 2024 presidential race—which, surely, would prove me wrong.

Indeed, after winning said election, Donald Trump described the results as an “unprecedented and powerful mandate” for his policies, and those who supported him or at least vilified Kamala Harris crowed about the “people” choosing a new direction for America.

However, in truth, this election merely continued the storied tradition of winning candidates’ pretending that an election victory signals anything other than support (or antipathy for the other candidates) from less than one-third of the country while ignoring the plurality of citizens who essentially want nothing to do with any of the candidates. In other words, this election proved once again that democracy among large groups of people wherein the outcome means forced servitude to the victor is no system worthy of respect, regardless of media and elite narratives to the contrary.

True Preferences

For the 2024 presidential election, there were 244.7 million eligible voters (or “voting-eligible population,” VEP). The current voter turnout was 154.7 million (63% of VEP). Despite incessant media exhortations, this turnout was numerically and proportionally lower than that in 2020: 159.7 million votes and a 66.6% turnout. In fact, the 2024 turnout was roughly the same in percentage terms as in 2008 and 2016.

Of these votes, Trump won 74.5 million, which was 48.2% of votes cast. Harris won 70.9 million or 45.8% of votes cast.

These percentages are what are widely reported in the media and, as I noted in my previous article, mislead people into thinking that winning candidates earn a substantial portion of the country’s backing. Because such numbers include only those who voted, however, they necessarily ignore the large number of people who choose to ignore the sham of voting for various reasons, and it is these people who constitute the nation’s largest voting bloc.

To illustrate, consider that in this election, the two main candidates won just 145.4 million combined votes of the 244.7 million VEP. Of those 244.7 million, fully 99.3 million voted for neither major candidate, and 90 million did not even vote.

Thus, when we examine the results by VEP, we see the following rank order of people’s actual preferences, given the available choices:

For the especially cynical among us, we can also say that 170.2 million people (70% of the VEP) “lost” the election because they preferred someone (or no one) else besides Trump.

States Are no Different

These results that ignore large swaths of citizens are true in individual states, as well. First, we can note that VEP turnouts ranged from a low of 53.4% in Oklahoma to a high of 76.5% in Minnesota, meaning that between 24% and 46% of people in various states wanted nothing to do with the candidates and/or the process itself. Further, in 23 states, the percentage of VEP abstaining or voting for “none of the above” was greater than the percentage of votes garnered by the candidate who won the state.

Let us examine two different states in more depth, though, to see just how pervasive this issue is.

First, in solidly Republican Wyoming, wherein Trump earned his largest percentage victory over Harris (+46%), there was a 62% turnout. Trump won 72% of those votes to Harris’s 26%.

However, in terms of VEP, Trump won just 43% of the VEP to Harris’s 16% while fully 38% of all voting-eligible people did not vote. Thus, even in what was arguably Trump’s most supportive state, he could garner support from only 43% of the citizens, just 5% more than those who said “please leave me alone” to the process itself.

Second, in the so-called “battleground” state of Pennsylvania, 70% of the VEP of 9.9 million turned out to vote. Trump won 50.7% of those votes, and Harris won 48.6%.

In terms of VEP, though, Trump won just 35% to Harris’s 34%. Nearly one-third of people (30%) in this “crucial” state simply abstained. Should such results truly be construed as the will of some monolithic people or perhaps instead as an indicator that no one can represent all of us?

But surely the will of the people is more evident in less centralized elections, right? Let us investigate some gubernatorial contests to find out.

First, in North Carolina, roughly 5.5 million people voted out of a VEP of 8.1 million (68%). The winning candidate, Josh Stein, earned just over 3 million votes. However, that total is barely higher than the number of people who sat out the election: 2.6 million. Moreover, more than 5.1 million people, or 63% of the VEP, did not vote for the winning candidate.

What about in Washington State? With a VEP of 5.6 million, Washington had a voter turnout of just over 3.5 million people (63%). Democrat Bob Ferguson won 1.97 million of those votes. Nonetheless, an even greater number of people, 2.1 million, chose not to vote at all; furthermore, 3.63 million people (65% of the VEP) did not vote for Mr. Ferguson.

Finally, let’s move to much less populated Montana with a VEP of roughly 898,000. Of those, 586,216 voted for governor (65%). Incumbent Greg Gianforte won 345,981 of those votes. Once again, though, those totals tell us that roughly 312,000 people opted not to vote (nearly Mr. Gianforte’s vote total), and fully 552,000 people (61% of the VEP) did not vote for Mr. Gianforte.

Thus, from presidents to state houses, no true representation of “the people” occurs via democracy, regardless of classroom tales to the contrary.

Conclusion

Whether you are elated or enraged by the result of this election, strong emotions and common sense should serve as your personal cues that democracy is deeply flawed. For one, these data remind us that tens of millions of people—a plurality in the nation as a whole—had no interest in any of the candidates or in forcing their will by proxy on others across the country. Second, no one can possibly understand, let alone represent, large groups of very different opinions, goals, and needs—whether at a federal, state, or even local level in most areas.

The only mandate after any election is, thus, that of each of us to act to circumscribe and frustrate the power of the rulers, not to lament or celebrate their victories over us. Pretending to have a say for one day every four years is neither power nor freedom, joy, or greatness. Until people can minimize the influence of politics in their lives and turn their post-election tears of joy or anger into building businesses, families, and relationships founded on voluntary interactions and shared value, they will continue to be at the mercy not only of politicians but also of democracy itself—both of which silence far more often than they empower.