The map above shows what the 2016 US Presidential Election results would have been if votes not cast for Hillary, Trump or one of the third party candidates had gone to fictional candidate “Did Not Vote.”
See the 2020 results here.
Disclaimer: The map above was accurate as of January 17th, 2017. Totals below were true at the time of writing but may no longer currently be accurate as additional votes and recounts are conducted.
Only 8 states + Washington DC, had high enough voter turnouts where one of the actual candidates won more votes than people who did not bother to vote. Iowa and Wisconsin for Trump and Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire and DC for Clinton.
A few other 2016 election facts for you:
- As a percentage of eligible voters, Clinton received 28.43% (65,845,063) of all votes compared to Trump’s 27.20% (62,980,160) and Did Not Vote’s 44.37% (102,731,399).
- Total voter turnout was estimated to be 55.3% of the voting age population and 59.0% of the voting eligible population.
- It is the 5th election since 1820 when the winner of the popular vote lost the presidency (the others being 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000)
- Donald Trump received 2,046,656 more votes than Romney did in 2012, but Hilary Clinton received 70,732 fewer votes than Obama did in 2012.
- Neither Candidate even won a majority of votes cast, Clinton got 48.0% vs Trump’s 45.9%.
- As a percentage of the entire US population (including those too young or other ineligible to vote) Clinton got votes from 20.30% of the population and Trump got votes from 19.41% of people.
- Washington DC is the only area in the country where a majority of all eligible voters (whether they voted or not) voted for Clinton (90% of voters, voted for Clinton on a 55.7% turnout). In the other 6 states listed above, victories were simple pluralities.
Like to see more 2016 US election maps?
- 2016 US Presidential Election Map By County & Vote Share
- How Whites Voted In The 2016 US Presidential Election by State & County
- Counties That Changed Party In The 2016 US Presidential Election VS 2012
- 2016 US Presidential Electoral Map If Only [X] Voted
Find this map interesting? The please help us by sharing it:
Michael Ryland says
I would like to know, of those “Did Not Vote”(s), how many were Democrats and how many were Republicans.
Jason Blake says
That’s why they didn’t vote, neither was there choice……seems the majority of Americans realize it is all a scam
DumptyTrumpty says
It is definitely a scam. But even scams have very real consequences.
Martin Kuiper says
As you surely have found out be now. Very real consequences indeed.
Chris says
Agreed – had she won, two thirds of us would he dead from the FF dirty bomb after starting WWIII, 2A would be repealed with military going door2door forcibly taking guns, 1A would be next, political enemies would be taken to FEMA camps, the sheep that stayed in line would be relocated to one of 9 districts living in 3rd world conditions.
Dont believe me? Then look at California at time of writing this.
Joe Bialobreski says
Jason and Dumpty, other than the Electoral College, how are our national elections a scam. And even considering the Electoral College’s effect of twisting the peoples input a bit, couldn’t it be overcome, and very possibly would be, if people opted to vote. They’re all counted, okay that is probably not the case but it is damn near the case. I think you are confusing the willful ignorance or the American electorate (that being not only those who voted but those that were eligible and those who could be eligible), with a scam. Here’s some choices between a good steak or a good pork chop, or between a bad fast food burger or a turd on a bun gee which would be a more critical choice to make if you weren’t getting anything else to eat for a while. As Dumpty points out there are consequences not only to our actions but out lack of actions. Answer, hell yes. For years to come, both the voters choices and the non-voters decision not to register their preference will have consequences in their lives and different decisions, yes would have brought about different consequences, many small differences, a few big ones and collectively genuine differences in all of our lives, that is the way it works.
Now let me ask again, in what way or ways are our national elections as well as state to federal elective positions, state elected positions, and our local elections a scam? Please be specific and leave the money spent on elections out as elections are not bought if voters, or potential voters, do not sell their vote.
Jason Blake says
It is called the hegelian dialectic, two forces that oppose each other as Thesis & Anti-Thesis, but are moving in a direction called Synthesis.
For instance the control of the money supply is the most important economic/macro money issue in every country, yet anytime anyone tries to go after it, they are attacked – like head blow off attacked……..
I think Trump has already found out, he can’t do sh*t………….
Joe Bialobreski says
And the thing is that if Americans would think as they are capable of, most are not genetically cognitively challenged, just willfully ignorant, a form of stupidity, they would be able to challenge those who hold economic power. There is a question as to whether it would take armed revolution to change the power structure, these turds won’t even bother to think, are they capable of taking up arms, other than for the fun of it, with a previous thoughtful analysis of what the revolution would have to change and to what? I think not.
Compassionate Curmudgeon says
I really deeply doubt that our elected egomoniacal sociopathic oligarch has tried to ‘do’ anything of value. He’s pushed for cutting spending on everything but the military. He’s successfully loosened already loose environmental regulations ensuring that the 76,000 coal workers keep their jobs and the 318 million other americans get to deal with the fucked up water supplies.
It’s not that he can’t do shit, it’s that this country’s poor people looked up at the boot on their neck and said, ‘That’s what I aspire to.’ He’s the worst parts of the system, he already controlled the money. Why would someone like that ever opt to change the satus quo?
Leon Foonman says
You Are The Scam! Look at what an ignorant POS you are.
Noonan, Mark William says
And thus foisted Trump. They may have been pissed but dammit
Syd says
Grow up. All choices have consequences. No adult feels that any choice is perfect. Everyone knows that you are picking “on balance”.
Also, um, one of the candidates is evil and the other is not. So there’s that.
PI says
Me too.
Jean Waller says
The majority of registered voters are now independents (about 40%) so your question is irrelevant if you don’t include them. Both parties have lost membership over the last decades by failing to represent their constituents fully rather than special intersests and wedge issues. A smarter question would be why are the two “major” parties have been allowed to hijack our democracy and control the electoral process so much through their primaries, legislative gerrymandering, appointing their own debate commissions and rules for access in ways that routinely disenfranchise almost half of registered voters.
Barak_Mohammed_0bama says
You left out “INDEPENDENTS” – Which is MY guess…
gscott says
Most of them are not registered. And I’m sure this applies every election, not just this one.
Pamela says
I want to know if those votes belong to Bernie since his supporters could not vote for him because he was not on the ballot! He is listed as an Independent presidential candidate for the general election with the Green Papers.
Compassionate Curmudgeon says
Most weren’t registered. The map looks grey because they’re going off of ‘voting age population’ not ‘registered voters’. So they just moved the goalpost mathematically about 25-50% further out. 2012 and 2008 maps would look the same because Americans don’t register and don’t vote.
Oregon had 80% turnout among registered voters and about 83% registration. So the 2 million votes out of 2.5 turns into 2 million votes out of 3 million. It takes total turnout down to 60%. So in order for either side to win a state on this map it would take winning 1.6 million votes out of 2 million or about a 83% rate of support among registered voters.
No candidate has received that kind of mandate in my lifetime.
Don’t let this article twist your viewpoint.
So to answer your question: Very few of either.
Kurt Miller says
Overwhelmingly Democrat
Jessica says
Rebublican
Marcia Everett says
How many COULD NOT vote due to felonies?
XJ4 says
Democrats love not to vote
emjaysea says
If that’s true then barely anyone wanted Trump in office.
Dexterette says
Republicans march in lockstep more, like I wish Democrats would, and Democrats have more young supporters, which means more people who throw temper tantrums at the worst possible moments. Republicans throw theirs after elections (Tea Party), Democrats throw theirs during elections. Young Democratic voters are fatally idealistic. I can’t stand this talk of lowering the voting age. It should be raised to 21 if you ask me.
OhSoRight says
It should be 26 if you’re still living at home and using mommy and daddy’s health insurance.
Person says
And you also shouldn’t be able to vote or hold office if you are older than 65.
Keith says
I call an error that brings in doubt this whole thing…
Washington state had an 80% turnout. Hillary got 71% and Trump got 21%, and others got the rest. Therefore “did not vote” would be at the maximum 20%. Hillary takes Washington; as she did on November 8th.
Bonnie Jo says
Had just come here to say the same thing. I don’t trust this map at all. Looks like the same story for IL
ThroughDifferentEyes says
The number of counts “for” an elect are what got tallied. If the area was “BLANK” it wouldn’t count toward either candidate, hence 71% VOTED for Hillary that filled in that blank and 21% VOTED for Trump that filled in that blank. You can’t “count” blanks – until you count “entries” – that’s what they are saying they did. I would still like an additional link though. It would appear by these numbers that we had almost a 100% voter turn-out. But I would need proof of that before parading that news all over FB.
Keith says
Commenter C below is kind of right. The percentages to the candidates that I listed were indeed for King County (I accidentally have been looking there as the votes were being counted). But my comments below indeed use the election data for the entire State. My voter turnout percentage was correct for the State though.
Nick A. Zukin says
I don’t know about Washington, but Oregon had about an 80% turnout and over 50% voted for Clinton. That means Clinton got 40% and DNV got 20%, meaning Clinton won a plurality. Makes me question the map as well.
Keith says
You need to add in all the voting-eligible persons that are not registered. That is what makes this map sad and undermines the pleasing sound of “80% turnout”. If only 80% of Oregon is registered, “did not vote” wins.
Nick A. Zukin says
I can’t find figures on eligible vs registered voters in Oregon, but didn’t Oregon pass an “opt out” bill a couple years ago, making all eligible voters registered unless they choose not to be?
Paul Manson says
What you are hunting for is called Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP). Census tries to estimate it, for Oregon it is 2,830,525 (+/- 4,237). In Oregon 1,959,902 people cast a ballot for the presidential race (with 98.5% votes counted). So 870,623 people did not vote or were not registered, but could be based on age. Clinton received 982,205 votes. So she has the most votes of any “candidate”.
corbinc says
the oregon “new motor voter” law makes you registered by default whenever you do anything at the DMV, but it was just enacted this year, so many people probably haven’t been caught yet.
MarqusW says
458 electoral votes seems like a somewhat comfortable margin to account for this error (and CA as noted above).
Compassionate Curmudgeon says
They’re factoring in people who didn’t register at all. Oregon is in the same boat with an 80% turnout rate. If you take all ‘voting age’ people however that drops to 65% which makes the 51% clinton into more like 30%.
The part that makes this article bullshit is that more people turned out to the oregon election than ever have. I’m sure the same is true of other states. All this says is that it was a contentious election. For example in 2012 Obama got 54% of the vote. By these standards he would have needed 75% to get more than half and ‘win’ the ‘state.’
This article is full of shit/useless.
Bonnie Jo says
In WA 71% of people voted, 55% of those for Clinton. Therefore Clinton got 39% total vote, more than 29% of the did not vote. Not sure where you got your numbers.
John MasterGuns Lewis says
I have problems believing that absentee ballots are not counted. Absentee ballots are sent to the voter’s precinct, not to the state. Local races are often hotly contested and sometimes won by only a handful of votes, so it would be prudent to count every ballot that is received and determined to be a valid ballot.
John MasterGuns Lewis says
According to the numbers, would it be a stretch to say that had Clinton received as many votes as did Obama in 2012 she could very well be the president elect? And by extension, is it a stretch that since she received over 5 million fewer votes than Obama in 2012 that it was a repudiation of the current administration?
Wheezer says
It just means fewer people saw a valid reason to waste their votes on her than on Obama. People do have that option, after all. No one has ever been legally required to vote Democrat or Republican, despite what every year’s election percentages seem to suggest.
OhSoRight says
There are a lot of racists who only came out to vote for the black guy. No black guy, no interest.
Melanie Brown says
Exactly the point of the map.
Bonnie Jo says
The whole state was at least 71%, 55% for Hillary. She still beats did not vote. Same with IL
scalscott says
Absentee ballots are counted.
http://help.vote.org/article/8-are-absentee-ballots-counted
Milo Filadox says
Could be and should be. Might take a Constitutional amendment, but it would be worth it to rein in the established parties’ rigging the system against all other contenders.
Milo Filadox says
Nonsense.
Steve Oliveri says
Hillary would have won CA. This is based on over 3.5 million ballots outstanding of 8.5 million ballots not counted yet or not cast. Once they have been counted it will be around 5 million not cast ballots versus well over 7 million for Clinton. Please update your map accordingly.
MarqusW says
458 electoral votes seems like a somewhat comfortable margin to absorb this error.
Klaus Von Dessel says
This data isn’t based on registered voters, it is based on eligible voters. There are more than 24 million eligible voters in California so Clinton would still lose to “didn’t vote”.
It makes sense since not registering is the same as registering and not voting. You don’t care enough to vote for President even though you can.
Steve Oliveri says
No it’s not. If it was, Wisconsin wouldn’t be red.
Total eligible voters: 4,502,492
Total votes cast: 2,944,620
Total non-voters: 1,557,872
Votes for Trump: 1,409,467
This is how you make Wisconsin red on that map:
Total registered voters: 3,558,877
Total votes cast: 2,944,620
Total non-voters: 614,257
Votes for Trump: 1,409,467
Washington D.C. is the only place where one candidate would beat out non-voters out of all eligible voters.
Klaus Von Dessel says
Huh, I was going by the commenter below (Keith) who was saying the same thing about Washington needing to be blue. looks like the numbers are just weird.
Bahb says
75,000 California votes were thrown out because they were votes of illegals. Another 26,000 were thrown out because they were harvested. California cheating is legendary. Notice the color coding of the envelopes that hold the mail-in ballots? They don’t want to have to actually open them and count. Did you know that 21 States have Soros voting machines?
madisontruth says
120 million, who’d rather watch Netflix than vote. Now Nero is tuning up.
7worldtraveler says
Wrong! Absentee ballots ARE counted. That is why the final totals took so long in some states.
Catherine Brinkley says
Does anyone know where you can get data on the registered voter turnout by COUNTY? It seems like this would be great data to have so that counties with very low (below 20%) turnout can DO SOMETHING to address it- potentially by learning from counties with very high registered voter turnout. But… it seems that this data does not exist… and needs to be scraped from the individual county websites… which is incredibly tedious. Not to mention, it seems like voter turnout should be a top priority… and it’s rather sad that it hasn’t been analyzed.
OhSoRight says
I don’t want uninterested and uninformed people voting.
Do you?
bleef says
Right, because only you are the great informed one.
OhSoRight says
Not just me…there are plenty of others.
OhSoRight says
No. There are tens of millions of interested and informed people who have opinions different from me.
Vic78 says
That’ll probably be a candidate’s strategy or the new DNC chair might try to figure that one out.
Jose G. Ahumada says
Everyone should just register absentee. Tuesday voting is ridiculous. Deciding the fate of the nation on ONE workday with a set time limit? Absurd.
OhSoRight says
It’s actually the only smart way to do it.
Otherwise, everyone is voting on something different, as information is always coming out and new argument made.
All votes should be cast on the same day.
colton says
It’s not clear if the denominator is registered voters or those who voted in the 2016 elections. It sounds like the percentages given applies to all eligible voters.
OhSoRight says
To be fair, this is due in large part to registering people who don’t care about voting.
Monkey Brains says
Dead horse is dead.
Nikola Reljic says
Votings are only for Peasents!
Nikola Reljic says
Money talk Bullshit walk!
NewColumbian says
This is what happens when both candidates do nothing but go negative.
stan69 says
Indeed, but that in itself rather underlines the extent to which the US is by no stretch of the imagination a democracy. We have a similar thing in the UK, the Queen can effectively pick a Prime Minister and government herself in the event that no-one has a clear majority. In both cases, in order to be truly formal and binding, a NOTA option would have to supersede such archaic and anti-democratic mechanisms. So constitutional amendments would indeed be necessary as part and parcel of introducing NOTA. But that is no reason to not pursue it. We are talking about true democracy in action after all, which is literally impossible without NOTA.
K1ng Pete says
The US is not, and was never intended to be, a democracy.
stan69 says
Indeed. But it pretends it is out of necessity. All the while that is true, the case for democratic pre-requisites like NOTA can be made. And won.
Three_to_Five says
People act like voting is some sort of sacred right that must be practiced by everyone: I’m one of the few that doesn’t care if certain people don’t want to vote. If you don’t have an informed opinion or just don’t care who wins, then go ahead and don’t vote. I’d much rather have 50% of eligible voters turn out and make an informed decision rather than have 100% of eligible voters vote in ignorance.
Noonan, Mark William says
Well that’s what happened. Those vast majority of white males in the interior have no education beyond high school. Like democrats they fall for the misinformation that their leaders give out. And no we have what could very well be a disaster of epic proportions.
Jeh Jeh says
Going to the polls and voting NOTA is very different than “Didn’t want to bother putting my pants on.”
Kira says
This is true, but I know a lot of people who would have bothered to put on pants if NOTA were an option, and a LOT who voted for Clinton as the lesser evil who all would have voted to invalidate both options.
gscott says
I don’t believe many voted for Clinton as the lesser of evils. She WAS the evil. Evil vs. Idiot. I voted Idiot.
And there are more people that don’t vote every year than vote. Not even registered to vote. There was surely more this year, but still. Every year the ‘did not vote’ candidate wins in a landslide.
David Lloyd-Jones says
She wasn’t evil. This is a Republican Big Lie, told over and over, year after year, all the way back to when she was a young single lawyer on the Watergate Committee staff pursuing the crook Nixon.
And Fred malek, the guy who did the dirty in the Saturday Night Massacre is back at work in Trump’s GOP today.
-dlj.
gscott says
Yes. No clinton ever did anything wrong. Sure.
EboTebo says
F**K Y*U!!
MJ says
Hillary being given sainthood by Popey would be an irony the masses would throw around like a ball of yarn until the end of time.
Carl Hatcher says
I know a lot of no longer young black males who don’t agree with you and as an older male I think she is evil corrupt and duplicitous. So evil is on the table for sure.
piaf says
Why participate in a fraud at all.
EboTebo says
You’re Evil!
Eddie Higgins says
I voted none of the above in Nevada in 2016 and not for the first time
John says
Everyone who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein were basically choosing NOTA. That is what I did.
Sharon says
Excellent!
Barbara Jean says
Except millions of people were not able to vote because of too few polling places (an elderly or working person can’t stand in line for 12 to 24 hours) or because of restrictive Voter ID laws passed all over the country in 2012 or because of crosschecking eliminating valid voter. And there were a lot of provisional votes handed out and then never counted. But it’s also true–many people felt neither candidate had their interests at heart. I have to wonder how many voters showed up to vote for their representatives and senators but left president blank.
PogmoThoin13 says
Indeed. It has been well established there was quite a bit of voter suppression and election fraud. (Note: election fraud is not the same as voter fraud).
Bryan Harris says
I voted Johnson instead…
Jeh Jeh says
Me too.
levi9998 says
Actually, the house has to choose among the top 3 electoral vote-getters (12th amendment), otherwise the current VP becomes president if they don’t get a majority choice.
Barak_Mohammed_0bama says
THE CURRENT V.P.?!?! an office which is HISTORICALLY chosen to be someone SO BAD no one will harm the President or “that idiot” takes over?!?
(AND I MEAN THAT BIPARTISANLY! ! ! )
Hence the book which chronicles history of the VP is titled “BLAND AMBITION”!
Craig Austin says
ROFLMAO (sort of) Barak, you’re way too excited here. Biden would have made a better president than either of the two candidates that could have won. But all this talk is just silliness. The electoral college being abolished could actually happen, though.
Wally Shoot says
NO way will the electoral college be abolished. The only reason Clinton won the popular vote was because of California. She won like 60% of the vote there; therefore she got the electoral votes from CA but that in and of itself is not enough to win the presidency as we all have now noticed. If the electoral vote goes away we will never see another president campaign outside of CA, TX, FL, & NY. There will be no need to, if you can win those 34 states in popular vote you win. May as well call us then the United States of California. So, NO it will not be abolished on those grounds.
Barbara Jean says
That same thing is happening in reverse today.
Barbara Jean says
I hope so. Enough of the least popular person becoming president.
Duke Harrington says
One minor quibble: Keep in mind Maine split its electoral votes. So, in effect, it voted for both major party candidates. Another interesting map might be to show how the election might have turned out if all 50 states divvied its electoral votes as Maine and Nebraska do.
Ross Merritt says
Not registering and not voting is just lazy and you should have no right to complain about the results. If you think it is rigged then get more involved not less.
sashamanda says
There are numerous rational reasons not to vote including a corrupt media that does more to obfuscate than enlighten, an educational bureaucracy that promotes a progressive worldview instead of an examination of the basis for US government, and an electoral system that shifts meaningful voting to “swing states.”
Mike Fogel says
Some of the numbers in this post are now out-of-date. For example, “Donald Trump received 667,646 fewer votes than Romney did in 2012, but Hilary Clinton received 5,075,873 fewer votes than Obama did in 2012.” This is simply no longer true. Trump has now surpassed Romney, and Clinton is within 4M votes of Obama. Hillary’s lead over Trump has also now grown to 1.3M votes and leads Trump 48.0% to 47.0%.
It would be good to update this post with a disclaimer at the top that this was done with incomplete voter tallies, and that it’ll be updated once the final vote is certified in all the states.
jaw444 says
never mind, i found the information i was asking about, i would delete my question but don’t see that option.
Javier Anderson says
This map is no longer accurate as the numbers continue to pile in. Already Colorado and Maryland have higher turnout and therefore should be in the Clinton camp on this map. Also, Maine should have one of its electors put to Trump because of the way they delegate Electoral College votes by Congressional District. I suspect that before all is said and done, Vermont and Wyoming will also fall out of the “Did not vote” category and should be place toward Clinton and Trump respectively.
David Direktor says
Reminds me of the film “Brewster’s Millions” where he changes his name to “None of the above”, stands for election and wins.
stan69 says
A good film, but not really indicative of what a true NOTA option is. A person or party called ‘none of the above’ will always just be another ‘one of the above’ in practice. A bona fide NOTA option does what it says on the tin: allows people to reject all that is off and withhold consent in a formal and binding way.
SenzibleG says
Time to move out of the 18th Century people! The US will continue to suffer the sepsis of poisoned democracy-light until all citizens are automatically registered to vote and all citizens are required to vote. That includes using a NOTA choice stan69 mentions. If NOTA wins in primaries or the general then you have to find new candidates. Both ‘choices’ this year were and are dead ends.
Donny Wilmer says
There are about 200 million eligible voters in the United States in 2016. Clinton received
about 65 million of those votes
(32.5%); Trump received about
62 million of those votes (31.0%);
and that leaves third-parties
and nonvoters, totalling about
73 million (36.5%). Since the
largest share of this last group,
nonvoters, don’t GET a share of
the vote, Clinton’s “plurality”
(65 million votes) is actually a
MAJORITY. She should be the
President-Elect. Abstentions
don’t count as votes. If you add the two top vote-getters as a
whole ( 127 million votes ),
Clinton got 51.18% ( a
majority) and Trump got 48.81%.
Nonvoters this time around are
not a bigger percentage (36.5%)
than they have ever been before.
Compassionate Curmudgeon says
Agreed. This article factored ‘voting age population’ which includes all kinds of felons and mentally infirmed people that can’t/shouldn’t/don’t want to register/vote.
Mr Trainbeans says
i dont understand how this is supposed to undermine the obvious truth that the USA is an illegitimate settler empire based on a system of murderous class and racial apartheid and deserves to be destroyed
Michael McTeer says
For POTUS, NOTA would result in election by the House of Representatives, no?
stan69 says
Not if implemented properly. As things stand, the house is allowed to have final say in the event of there being no clear winner, for whatever reason. But a bona fide formal and binding NOTA option would have to supersede all that in order to be legitimate and not just a token gesture. If the majority formally reject all that is on offer, by definition those candidates must be disqualified and a new election must be run. That is democracy in action. The plain fact is that the spectacle of electing POTUS is the whole point, not the election itself, because the US is not a democracy, not even close. Even if it were a lot closer to being an actual democracy than it is, there would have to be a formal, binding NOTA option in place in order for it to be fully democratic. Without NOTA, true democracy is impossible.
gunnerbear says
Or the same candidates can stand but they’d have to alter their policies to get the voters to back them…..
Jason says
Uh, this number?
Did Not Vote’s 44.37% (10,2731,399)
Kerry Petersen says
Apparently, the “did not voters” just “could not” bring themselves to vote for the skank…….even if it meant saving the entire world from Trump. So, I guess every non-vote was like a vote for Trump. That means that the skank never came close to being the “popular” candidate after all. Hmmmm
SteveO says
You forgot Delaware
*Droopy Voice* Don’t worry, they always do
piaf says
Putting your pants on and going to the polls is a waste of good time and energy. Plus it condones the fraud. Not going to the polls is very different from ‘not bothering.’ It’s ‘not condoning the circus.’ It’s being awake.
Syd says
And, potentially, drafted into a war. Think it can’t happen? Vote, every time. No matter what.
Chris Ramsey says
This ‘brilliant map’ shows Delaware as blue, and D.C. as gray. if the text below it is accurate, these should be reversed.
Ed says
9. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting (if there are any such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for the acts of his agents or representatives, it cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the Constitution by voting. No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing as assent to, or support, the Constitution, unless he does it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them.
10. As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a vand does nothing towards proving that “the people of the United States,” or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.
For all the reasons that have now been given, voting furnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily.
So far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the Constitution, legally speaking, has no supporters at all.
And, as a matter of fact, there is not the slightest probability that the Constitution has a single bona fide supporter in the country. That is to say, there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man in the country, who both understands what the Constitution really is, and sincerely supports it for what it really is.
The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes — a large class, no doubt — each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” [1] and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.
From:
No Treason
The Constitution of No Authority
by Lysander Spooner
http://jim.com/treason.htm
Doc Chaos says
Unless the constitution is personally ratified. Perhaps that would be a requirement if federalism weren’t so delicate a sell.
Paul Hoffman says
Dont believe this for a second; polls here were packed.
Helen York says
Your map is incorrect about Maine. Maine did not give all of its electoral votes to Clinton.Maine assigns two of its electoral votes by congressional district, so while two electoral votes went to Clinton on the basis of overall numbers, and while the Southern District went with Clinton, Northen Maine went with Trump. The numbers should be 3f or Clinton, 1 for Trump.
Travis Frey says
This article was made in November. I’m sensing time travel or a heavy edit to the original article.
PlayStation4Life! says
I didn’t vote, cuz i can’t (i’m not american). But if i could. I would vote for the Donald!
Anyways, this map is fake news.
Bryan Harris says
Thanks for just ignoring Delaware and pretending it is not a state even though it is clearly blue…
PogmoThoin13 says
This just confirms that most eligible voters would like a choice other than Dem or GOP.
Shannon Jacobs says
Uh… The map has a mistake. DE is Delaware, which is colored for DC’s vote.
Shannon Jacobs says
I should have thought to follow that link at the top. In that archived source the map is colored correctly.
Luke wallis says
Is there a particular reason Delaware is colored blue on the map but not listed as a Clinton state? Other than, you know, rudeness?
Paul says
The % breakdown cannot be accurate…
As a percentage of eligible voters, Clinton received 28.43% (65,845,063) of all votes compared to Trump’s 27.20% (62,980,160) and Did Not Vote’s 44.37% (102,731,399).
= 100%
We know some voters chose other candidates.
Jay Lender says
Please source your data and include an attribution in your graphic JPEG. You KNOW people want to share that picture!
MM says
Not voting, was voting. It was a statement that neither choice was acceptable. Neither candidate sold themselves and their platform to those voters. The candidates failed the voters. If the candidate can’t close the deal in the campaign by the election, they don’t deserve the job; they lack what it takes to do the job; they are not top dog material.
Chainsaw says
I wonder what those numbers would look like if we could vote for policy rather than personalities? Not wanting to eat either cat poo or dog poo doesn’t mean someone wants to go hungry.
MyChoice says
Thirty-Nine States have Early Voting. In my home state of North Carolina, Early Voting begins on the third Wednesday in October and runs through the last Saturday preceding Election Day. Any registered voter who did not vote cannot be, nor should not be, categorized. In 2016, there were any number of reasons not to vote from, “I do not like either candidate”, to, “My vote won’t matter since the MSM is publishing a 94% lock for Clinton”. Voter Suppression, Gerrymandering, Electoral College, and etc. are simply excuses for a failed candidacy. I know several registered voters who chose not to vote due to the impression of Clinton “Stealing” the Democrat Nomination from Sanders. Registered Voters are not required to vote. Their reasons are secret and sacred unless they wish to disclose their reason(s) for not participating.
Charles Olszewski says
It’s January 24th, 2020 and I just finished watching Trumps Senate impeachment hearings. I just found this study tonight. In fall 2016 I did a similar quick analysis at the national level once the tally was finalized. My calculation was similar to the basis of this study. “Did Not Vote” was the clear winner at the popular level compared to eligible voters. Registered voters is a meaningless number in elections. What drives this country are the total number of eligible Non-Voters. The consequences of this basket of deplorable morons is painfully clear to a small minority of that spend one hour per year to vote responsibility. We are getting dumber every day.