Stop Blaming ‘The Voters’

Few of us have the ability to impact the outcome.

30

Comments

In the discussion section of yesterday’s post “Justice Department Aiming to Strip Ilhan Omar’s Citizenship,” longtime commenter @DK observed,

Why is it that when Republicans do awful things, the first word out of many Americans’ mouths is “Democrats”?

Democrats have been united in responding with outrage. Since Americans decided with eyes wide open to vote Democrats out of power and hand over the keys of government to fascists and racists, that’s pretty much all Democrats can do on this.

What Americans should do is stop finding excuses not to vote for Democrats (“Genocide Joe!”) and stop building a permission structure for others to not vote for Democrats (“I live in a blue state, so I’m going to protest vote because genocide”) and then come running for Democrats to save our asses from the consequences of our decision to not support Democrats.

I see this a lot, both in the OTB comment section and elsewhere. And, in a sense, it’s a fair point: Donald Trump has twice been elected President, the second time after fomenting an insurrection and having been found civilly liable for sexual assault, and Republicans have slim majorities in both the House and the Senate despite over a decade of slavishly backing Trump. Given that we have elections, who else to blame but the voters?

The system, mostly.

Trump was famously elected in 2016 despite getting almost 3 million fewer votes than his Democratic opponent. Because we filter the popular votes through the Electoral College, which disproportionately weighs votes in low-population states and (with two minor exceptions) is winner-take-all at the state level, it came down to 107,000 people in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. As the Washington Post drolly noted, that’s “about the same as the number of people who can pack into Michigan’s ‘Big House’ stadium.”

In 2024, Trump won the popular vote by a little over 2 million. But Harris could nonetheless have won had she flipped 115,000 votes in three states. Trump won all seven so-called swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) that we focused on in the months leading up to the election, but the margins were tiny.

What’s noteworthy is that the outcomes in almost all races are baked in from the outset. To take the front pagers here, there’s nothing Steven or I could have done to affect the outcome. Trump won Alabama 65 percent to 24 percent (nearly doubling Harris’ 772,000 votes) and Harris won Virginia 52-46 (a margin of roughly 250,000 votes out of 4.5 million cast).

It’s true that 62,985,106 Americans voted for Trump in 2016 and 77,302,580 did so in 2024. We can certainly blame them for doing so! But the nature of a binary system is that, for most voters, they’re choosing between two candidates whose policy positions and/or character they find distasteful. And, because their platforms are so polarized at this point, it’s asking a whole lot of voters to go for a candidate who has pledged to vote against their preferences on all hot-button issues of the day.

Turning to Congress, we see the same thing: relatively few American voters have any real choice. Roughly 18 of 435 House seats are competitive; the rest are decided in the party primary. Only a third of the 100 Senate seats are up in any given cycle, and only 7 of the 35 seats up this year are competitive.

While Virginia was still considered a red state when I moved here in 2002, it has long since become purple, if not blue.* The state last voted Republican for President in 2004. The last Republican Senator, George Allen, was defeated in 2006. My House district and those surrounding it have been Democratic for years. Voting is really pro forma here.

It’s taking a wildly unpopular President, who’s waging a wildly unpopular war that has led to a horrible economy, to make it possible for the Senate to flip this cycle.** And even under those circumstances, it’s still coming down to seven states. While Steven and I both have the opportunity to vote, neither of us live in a state where the outcome is the slightest bit in doubt. In Alabama, Republican Barry Moore will easily beat Democrat Everett Wess. In Virginia, incumbent Democrat Mark Warner will easily beat Republican Bert Mizusawa.*8* In both cases, the margin will likely be 30 points or more.


*It’s true that Republicans swept the top state offices (governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general) in 2021. But that’s a function of incredibly low turnout in off-off-year elections, the hangover effects of the COVID pandemic, and Virginia’s weird penchant for voting opposite the presidential outcome the following year.

**A year ago, it was considered a near-impossibility because 22 of the 35 seats were won by Republicans the last go-round.

***Mizusawa, a retired Army major general, has an impressive resume, but I know nothing else about him. The race is so under the radar that I had no idea who he was until I looked him up. I’ve seen maybe three yard signs, despite early voting being underway.

30 responses to “Stop Blaming ‘The Voters’”

  1. Charley in Cleveland Avatar
    Charley in Cleveland

    I have a neighbor who reflexively votes Republican in federal elections and justifies it by saying, “I am voting for what is best for my 401(k).” In state elections, he falls for the candidate who promises to cut Ohio’s already low state taxes…failing to grasp that every dollar that doesn’t get sent to Columbus leads to an increase local taxes in order to make up for the money that used to come from Columbus. So contrary to the evidence, he is convinced that Republicans are better stewards of HIS financial situation than Dems would be. I believe a lot of Republican voters hold the same conviction and, as Dems have put it, “vote against their own interests.” You can lead a horse to water….

    1
    1. “…best for my 401(k)”

      I understand that GWB doesn’t count because of something something. The stock markets have risen sharply over each presidential term since the 80’s, with the notable exception of W, during whose two terms the S&P 500 actually lost value.

  2. I’ve often wondered for the NoVa and parts of MD vote how much influence non-resident voting has on the outcome of who is elected; meaning, NoVa has a lot of military that are stationed there temporarily (meaning 2+ years) but they vote goes with their resident state. It also has a lot of govt staff living there while they work for some senator and member from a different state. Would NoVa and MoCo be so blue if those people voted in those cities?

  3. Strong disagree. Based on Trump’s history, the elections should have blowouts, not close enough for the system to matter.

    If roughly half of the voters are willing to accept a President with plain as day racist and sexist views and actions, who has failed in every business he tried, including multiple bankruptcies, who views all human interactions from a “what’s in it for me” point of view, and who has zero respect for the rule of law, then that is on the voters.

    6
    1. @Moosebreath As recently as 1988, Presidential candidates won in blowouts.

      Reagan got 489 Electoral Votes and won 44 states in 1980
      Reagan got 525 and won 49 states in 1984
      Bush Sr got 426 and 40 states in 1988

      But that was in the days of Southern Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans who would routinely cross the aisle. And when California was a reliably red state!

      2008 was widely considered a blowout, but Obama only won 28 states and 365 EV. He only won 26 in 2012.

      Trump won 31 states + ME-02 in 2024.

      1. Way to focus on the word “blowout” and totally ignore the rest of what I said, James.

        1
        1. @moosebreath No, I’m just saying the nature of our electoral contests have changed in recent decades. We used to see blowouts, because the parties were less sorted ideologically so a great candidate could sweep. We’ve moved to elections where the results are essentially baked, with only a handful of states in play.

        2. James, your 1:57 PM response is exactly why this is a voter problem. The structures haven’t changed from the 80’s. The voters have.

          1
  4. A note on the “winner take all” aspect of the EC:

    I’d often wondered what it would look like if EC votes were set by congressional district, so a couple years ago, I did the math. I took the results of the 2012 and 2016 elections (I couldn’t find complete data for 2020) and assigned House EC votes by district. If the split was more than 66% in favor of one party, that party got both of the Senate EC votes. If less than 66%, they split.

    The result? Exactly the same outcomes. I was sure that some states would flip and Trump would have lost in 2016, but nope.

    Quite disheartening.

    1. @Mu Yixiao Yes, going the district route actually makes things worse most cycles, as it combines the undemocratic nature of the Senate and gerrymandered House seats.

      1
    2. @Mu Yixiao: To amplify James’ point: the district method is inherently flawed for the same reason most House races are not competitive due to the inherent nature of single-seat districts due to a combination of the unequal distribution of populations and gerrymandering.

      A better experiment is to allocate the EV proportionally based on the partisan vote percentages, but that is skewed by the way EVs are distributed (the 2 EVs that each state gets regardless, which inflates the importance of some voters),

      Of course, the best way to know what each state prefers is to just use the popular vote.

      1
  5. As citizens we have rights and RESPONSIBILITIES! I give no pass and seek to hold accountable those MAGAts who couldn’t measure the man that Trump isn’t.

    2
  6. Michael Reynolds Avatar
    Michael Reynolds

    @DK is right, James, and you are wrong. The popular vote matters, and not just the electoral college. It is the voice of the American people.

    By electing this loathsome creature twice–even by plurality–the American people told the world that they were fools, stupid, ignorant, reckless and cruel, fools. This is different than previous elections where people around the world may have despised our policies but never quite lost faith in the American people. Now they have lost faith in us, not our institutions, not our ‘system,’ but us.

    The United States is no longer the leader of the free world. We are no longer the good guys, we are villains. And that is down to people who thought their vote didn’t matter. I’m surprised, James, with your wide international perspective, that you don’t see what this will mean going forward. We have fallen from our pedestal, a pedestal built of D-Day and the Marshall Plan and the world’s operating system of international institutions, and of help rushed to every famine and natural disaster, and of the world’s first superpower that genuinely wanted and genuinely worked–however badly at time–democracy and freedom.

    It’s not just the voters in swing states, it’s every voter in any state who failed to speak up as an American through the ballot box.

    3
    1. @Michael Reynolds Oh, the results are disastrous. It will take years, if not decades, to rebuild trust with NATO and our other allies.

      But the system makes this possible. Only tangentially referenced in the OP is the primary system. Since the winners of most states (and thus Electoral votes and Senate seats) and congressional districts are essentially predetermined, low-turnout party primary elections determine the candidates. And, in 2024, the primaries didn’t even matter for the Democratic ticket: Harris was simply foisted on us.

      Because Trump was such an outlier, it actually caused states like Georgia to flip in 2020. But the overwhelming number of voters who prefer the Republican platform were naturally going to hold their noses and vote for him given the stakes.

      Beyond our institutions, the fact of the matter is that Trump’s rise here has been paralleled in much of the West. We had Brexit in the UK and the rise of far-right parties across Europe. It’s just that their systems allow voters more choices.

  7. The system is bad. With the gerrymandering there are way too many safe districts which means the candidates at the extremes are the ones more likely to get elected. Once elected it’s clear that our Constitution is seriously flawed. I didnt get a chance to comment on Taylor’s piece at Liberal Currents but it was excellent on this issue. There is essentially no realistic way to limit a POTUS who decides to act outside of norms.

    That said, I still think it goes back to the voters. Americans have let themselves be lead into becoming so tribal that they will vote for almost anyone no matter how flawed if from their own tribe. Note that especially on the right being able and willing to go to extremes in insulting and denigrating the opposition seems to be just as or more important than actual policy positions or even basic integrity. Look at the increased prevalence of conspiracy theories and the rejection of expertise. Even with a much less flawed system how do we get better governance with this kind of a populace?

    Steve

    1
  8. But the nature of a binary system is that, for most voters, they’re choosing between two candidates whose policy positions and/or character they find distasteful. And, because their platforms are so polarized at this point, it’s asking a whole lot of voters to go for a candidate who has pledged to vote against their preferences on all hot-button issues of the day.

    Why is it asking a whole lot of voters to not elect someone clearly unfit for the presidency into the office of POTUS, “hot-button issues” or not?

    Surely, there is a line between choosing based on differences in “distasteful” character and choosing between a smart, experienced woman of color and a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, and insurrectionist. In the oldest democracy on earth, it is a problem when voters affirmatively and knowingly support fascism, no?

    Our polarization is a choice. Politics as team sport is a choice. Please don’t justify accepting ever more egregious behavior from the GOP team, because of arguments as flimsy and false as “the other guys are worse.”

    Yes, we have a binary system so we must vote between limited choices for the candidate closest to our ideal. But, the difference between Good and Evil is binary as well.

    1. @Scott F. If you have strong views on Supreme Court and other judicial picks, immigration, abortion, LGBTQ issues, and so many other issues, it’s just asking too much to vote for someone who is going to work against them. I flipped in 2016 (and Steven in 2008), but we’d already been frustrated by the direction of the party for years by that point.

      And 2024 was a strong anti-incumbent year across the West. While the American economy was doing better than the others, it was still poor from the after-effects of COVID and the supply chain disruptions. And the Biden/Harris switcheroo didn’t help matters.

      1. Respectfully, James, you are saying it’s understandable to support fascism if it would lead to some of the policy outcomes you’d prefer or if you think it will lead to cheaper eggs.

        That you and Steven left your team when that team no longer served your values is proof that people must have some tipping point when one’s strong preferences on issues can no longer forgive taking sides with the baddies. I think it is completely fair to judge poorly those who would hang onto the Us vs. Them excuses well past the point when their Us is blatantly corrupt, inept, immoral, and illiberal.

        1. @Scott F.

          Let’s assume that all GOP voters are, in fact, “blatantly corrupt, inept, immoral, and illiberal”–there are reasons why I think this is a problematic characterization, but let’s stipulate it for the moment.

          Are GOP voters the majority? If not, then why are they in control?

          The structure of the system.

          1
        2. @Steven

          I’m not arguing that all GOP voters are “blatantly corrupt, inept, immoral, and illiberal.” I am arguing that within the obvious perversions of our system – a condition not in the voters’ control – GOP voters are choosing “blatantly corrupt, inept, immoral, and illiberal” representation in national politics for the sake of their interests – a condition in their control. They are affirmatively valuing policy outcomes over standing against immorality and illiberalism.

          Of course, the structure of our system is perverse and it leads to anti-majority representation. I’m not arguing that the majority of voters favor immorality or illiberalism. I’m arguing that in a system that gives undue power to the minority, we aught not make excuses when that minority sides with evil because the system made them do it.

          Mussolini supporters don’t get a pass even if his dictatorship made the trains run on time.

          1
  9. The two top headlines and subheads at NYT at the moment:

    Avalanche of G.O.P. Cash Keeps the Party Competitive Despite Its Problems
    Republican Senate and House candidates are being out-raised by their Democratic rivals, but the party has received a huge boost from groups tied to Elon Musk and President Trump

    And.

    Most of Ken Paxton’s Money Can Be Traced to One Man: Elon Musk
    The world’s richest person, who has become the biggest known midterm donor, gave $158 million to a group that quickly spent that much to help Mr. Paxton’s Senate bid in Texas

    (No link, it’s their existence, not their content, that matters.) And it’s far from just Musk.

    You can blame our current Gilded Age plus levels of wealth for this. You can blame the Koch Bros and their accomplices who set out decades ago to lift any restrictions on money in politics. You can blame SCOTUS, but that just comes back to the Koch Bros. The fact is the GOP plutocrats are buying elections. The voters aren’t at fault for thi$.

    1
    1. Here’s the link for the Paxton-Musk story:

      Elon Musk is the donor behind Senate Republicans’ massive rescue mission for Ken Paxton

      After months of being outspent by Democrat James Talarico on the airwaves, Republicans launched a massive rescue mission for Ken Paxton in September, dropping over $200 million to boost their U.S. Senate candidate in Texas.

      New campaign finance filings revealed that much of the advertising flurry was funded by one highly motivated donor: Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man.

      Musk, who lives near the SpaceX Starbase facility in South Texas, appears to have poured nearly $190 million into the U.S. Senate race in his adopted home state. His role in financing Paxton’s air support was disclosed in reports filed Thursday to the Federal Election Commission by Senate Leadership Fund, the Senate GOP’s main super PAC and the biggest spender in Texas’ Senate contest.

  10. For decades before Trump, the Republican opted to portray people who weren’t victims (i.e white people, taxpayers, businesses, white evangelical Christians) as the biggest victims in America. And there’s no excuse for this: as an adult, you should know better than to feel victimized by the existence of others. This is part of life; but not-knowing better is the part of the fundamentalist/evangelical ideology.

    So it should not have been a surprise that A) this approach alienated people who didn’t go around with a million fake grievances and B) this approach drew in demagogues like Trump.

  11. Wow. Been a long time since a post pissed me off as much as this one.

    I’ll keep it short. Dr. Joyner, you’re wrong. Flat out wrong. Anyone who voted for Trump in 2024 needs to have that hung around their neck until the end of time. People have agency, and excusing their shitty behavior helps no one.

    So.. fuck em. I want every single one of them exposed for all the shit this country is going through.

    The fact that one guy can spend $200M on one senate seat in Texas tells us how far we’ve fallen.

    6
    1. He wrote a bunch of words rather than admit a good number of his friends, colleagues, and connections are moral failures

      1
  12. Stop Blaming ‘The Voters’

    No.

    Stop infantilizing American adults and pretending we lack choices and agency. Stop denying we didn’t have an obviously better option that we foolishly and indefensibly rejected.

    But the nature of a binary system is that, for most voters, they’re choosing between two candidates whose policy positions and/or character they find distasteful. And, because their platforms are so polarized at this point, it’s asking a whole lot of voters to go for a candidate who has pledged to vote against their preferences on all hot-button issues of the day.

    Except the part were we were choosing between a normal politician with normal strengths and normal flaws, vs. pathological lying felon and pedophile who incited a terror attack on Congress.

    The logical endpoint of this argument is that Trump could be Hitler and Manson combined, and it would still be asking too much of American voters to reject him Because The Binary and Policy Preferences. That is silly — especially coming from the same conservatives who’ve for years flogged personal responsibility, personal responsibility, personal responsibility.

    Citing policy preferences as an excuse to give the nuclear codes to a monster is itself an example of our blinkered political morality. Who decided that when picking a president we should, ipso facto, weight his tax policy above his decades-long history of evil? The idea we should care more about policy than manifest unfitness is the kind of problematic American canard that got us into this mess. Because no we shouldn’t.

    This unfortunate dedication to justifying the unjustifiable is why we cannot expect Americans to have a come-to-Jesus post-MAGA corrective like Germany had post-Hitler. German culture in recovery recognized no absolution; in fact, Nazi aplogia was made illegal. This moral maturation paved the way for Germany to heal, flourish, and become a modern society with high quality of life.

    Not gonna happen in the USA, because Americans still can’t accept we did this to ourselves, still sneer at moralism and deny its role, still pretend old-fashioned ideas like decency and ethics don’t matter. It’s as pathetic as it is predictable.

    Preference for Harris over Trump ran at 70-90% in our Western democratic peer nations. Not because 70-90% of Europeans support of Dem policy preferences, but because the choice was obvious, because Trump is not now and never has been fit for the presidency, in any system. Americans can’t ask ourselves why Trump’s opponents didn’t win 70-90% of the vote here. Because then we’d have to admit our destructive sexism and racism, rather than gaslighting women and ethnic minorities, and telling black folk they’re making it all up (while waiting for the next set of leaked police or GOP text messages to reveal how bigoted and hateful they are in private).

    It’s not asking too much of Americans to put policy preferences aside and oppose a candidate who is manifestly unfit. I did it when I left the Republican Party. Republican-aligned voters are doing so now, belatedly, in 2026. They are declining to show up for a president and party that has lost its mind. They could have, and should have, done the same in 2024.

    By the way, the binary system didn’t force Republicans to renominate Trump in 2024. The 2024 primary gave Republicans the option of keeping both their policy preferences and their honor. They declined. All else being equal, would it be asking too much of Republicans to nominate Nikki Haley over Jeffrey Dahmer? Systems matter, but system is not a synonym for outcome. They are but one contributing factor. Systems are not an get-out-jail-free excuse for any and everything. Something that conservatives used to believe before they went full Stalinist crybaby.

    5
    1. “Preference for Harris over Trump ran at 70-90% in our Western democratic peer nations. Not because 70-90% of Europeans support of Dem policy preferences…”

      This.
      Most Europeans could not give a tuppeny damn about US party differences, or “culture wars” based on evangelicalism, or tax policy, or “woke”, or whatever.
      The point was, it was obvious Trump was a “wrong ‘un”, and Harris was not.
      And, inviting the ire of some hereabouts, Trump was “off” in a way that Reagan or Bush 1 or Bush 2 were not, whatever their failings.
      Most British Conservatives I know think Trump is an utter arsehole, and obviously so.
      It seems only unthinking tribalism that can explain the adhesion of the Republican base to Trump.
      (Well, that and the idiotic opportunism of the business elite, many of whom, I suspect, are now regretting their gullibility)
      The cowardice of the Republican leaders to fail to destroy him when they had their chances is going to have a long and sorry aftermath.
      A pity McConnell is not going to be in a position to appreciate it, sez I, being a nasty bastard.

  13. The system sucks, and reinforces horrible, anti-democratic outcomes. The simple fact that Secretary Clinton received millions more votes and still lost the election is the most clear and obvious demonstration of how problematic the Electoral College has become.

    However, voters do not lack agency in this situation. Our problem is not simply that too many people are folded into my team/your team thinking. It is that there are enormous swaths of voters who DO NOT UNDERSTAND our systems. If they can’t even name three branches of government, how exactly are we expecting them to strategically vote to affect appointments? If they cannot find Switzerland or Germany on a map–let alone Iran or Iraq or Syria–how are we to expect them to understand foreign policy and vote strategically to support that?

    We will never get out of this mess.

    1
    1. Over time a people can come understand major issues if the informational dominant concerned engage in educational leadership (instead of defaulting to easy propaganda) or if events educate them.
      Unfortunately, the education of events can be painful.

  14. It’s certainly the case that “reasonable voters” can’t sway constituencies in which “tribal voters” determine the outcome.
    However, in that situation, it is the “tribal voters” that can, and should, be blamed.
    If they stand aside while activist nutcases capture the selections and primaries, and then vote for the nutcase candidates regardless, then blame is due.

    1

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.