Hillary and The Donald BOTH lost - "Didn't Vote" won!

[Sparko]

please bow to me, your new President. I just had my name legally changed to "Did Not Vote"

[Ana Dragule]

please bow to me, your new President. I just had my name legally changed to "Did Not Vote"

Congratulations, Present-Elect Did Not Vote. I will be honored to say I that even before this last election started, knew you did not vote.

[Cow Poke]

Pity. I really was at a loss for what was so stupid and was interested in your thoughts.

Got a penny?

[Ana Dragule]

Got a penny?

I have a haypenny, but if a haypenny won't do, then God bless you.

[robrecht]

Um, what?

90% of 55.7% is 50.13%. Not that thus an important or well expressed point.

[Cow Poke]

I have a haypenny, but if a haypenny won't do, then God bless you.

God Bless you, as well. And a Merry Merry Christmas.

[Terraceth]

Um, what?

It was saying that D.C. was the only area where a candidate actually won the majority of eligible voters, even counting those who didn't vote.

[Teallaura]

90% of 55.7% is 50.13%. Not that thus an important or well expressed point.

Er, how the heck do voters not vote? It says "majority of all eligible voters (whether they voted or not) voted for ". So are they measuring eligible voters or those who voted?

Never mind, I get it - but this offshoring editing isn't working well..

[Teallaura]

It was saying that D.C. was the only area where a candidate actually won the majority of eligible voters, even counting those who didn't vote.

And there goes understanding the thing. You can't win a majority of those who don't vote!!!!

[One Bad Pig]

Only if the non-voters consider that ending up with a President Trump is a win.

This does not follow from the post to which he is responding, and so is dumb.

The majority of non-voters were apparently democrats who lost by very slim margins in key states such as Fl., Pa., and MI so I'm guessing that they are now ruing their decision to stay home.

This is an unsupported assertion that the majority of non-voters were registered Democrats, and so is also dumb.

Elections have consequences, so overconfident, complacent democrats have no one but themselves to blame for allowing this catastrophe to occur. Let the chaos begin!

This is correct in that elections have consequences, but is only a 'catastrophe' in the eyes of those who desperately wanted the Democratic candidate to win. Calling it a 'catastrophe' is dumb, since a significant majority of eligible voters patently disagree.

Happy, Ana?

[Roy]

... I'd actually be unsurprised if Did Not Vote won every single election in the last century or so.

Surely they are no longer eligible because of the two term limitation?

[robrecht]

And there goes understanding the thing. You can't win a majority of those who don't vote!!!!

Like I said, it was not well expressed. She won a majority of eligible voters, even though many eligible voters did not vote. You have to pay close attention to the author's use of parentheses.