Hypothetical: What if no one voted in a democratic election?

[an anarchist]

I have a hypothetical situation for you guys today: Suppose a democracy had a presidential election, but no one voted. What would that imply for the legitimacy of the government?

That hypothetical may seem too unrealistic for you, so let me throw at you another, more probable (though unlikely) hypothetical: What if, in the United States, less than half of the eligible voting population votes in the 2024 presidential election? What would that mean, if anything?

I suppose the question I am trying to ask and answer here is this: if "citizens" do not take part in a democratic election, is the democracy still "legitimate"? Suppose if less than half of the Americans eligible to vote, don't vote in this upcoming election. Regardless of who wins, can the victor call themselves truly democratically elected? Refusal to take part is a choice, a vote in a way, right?

You guys know my views, I see no government as "legitimate". But I know there are many proponents of democracy on this site, and I am curious about how you guys answer this hypothetical.

 

[Wirey]

Tough one. I would say that the fact the population is given the option is the important part. Not everyone chooses to have kids, but they can. Not everyone chooses to drive, but they can. Not everyone chooses to seek higher education, but they can. Disinterest in a single election isn't necessarily a death knell for the institution.

I will say, if no one voted that would speak volumes about how intelligent the candidate was.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have a hypothetical situation for you guys today: Suppose a democracy had a presidential election, but no one voted. What would that imply for the legitimacy of the government?

That hypothetical may seem too unrealistic for you, so let me throw at you another, more probable (though unlikely) hypothetical: What if, in the United States, less than half of the eligible voting population votes in the 2024 presidential election? What would that mean, if anything?

I suppose the question I am trying to ask and answer here is this: if "citizens" do not take part in a democratic election, is the democracy still "legitimate"? Suppose if less than half of the Americans eligible to vote, don't vote in this upcoming election. Regardless of who wins, can the victor call themselves truly democratically elected? Refusal to take part is a choice, a vote in a way, right?

You guys know my views, I see no government as "legitimate". But I know there are many proponents of democracy on this site, and I am curious about how you guys answer this hypothetical.

It depends on the reason for the low turnout.

If it's because of apathy, it doesn't necessarily call the legitimacy of the process into question. For instance, municipal elections here have about 36% turnout, but there's no big campaign based around municipal councils being illegitimate.

If the low turnout is because people feel that they were blocked from voting, that's different, particularly if it's a matter of the party in power suppressing votes for a challenger.

 

[McBell]

I have a hypothetical situation for you guys today: Suppose a democracy had a presidential election, but no one voted. What would that imply for the legitimacy of the government?

Nothing.

That hypothetical may seem too unrealistic for you, so let me throw at you another, more probable (though unlikely) hypothetical: What if, in the United States, less than half of the eligible voting population votes in the 2024 presidential election? What would that mean, if anything?

Could mean any number of things.
The population did not like any of the candidates to bother voting...
A neighboring planet threated that any one who voted would be vaporized...

I suppose the question I am trying to ask and answer here is this: if "citizens" do not take part in a democratic election, is the democracy still "legitimate"?

I get the impression you are using a different meaning of 'legitimate'.....

le·git·i·mate​

adjective​

conforming to the law or to rules.​

Lack of participation has zero bearing on the legitimacy

Suppose if less than half of the Americans eligible to vote, don't vote in this upcoming election. Regardless of who wins, can the victor call themselves truly democratically elected?

Yes.
Even if only say three people out of 5,000,000,000,000 people voted the winner still won.
The reason(s) for the low turn out would be interesting to hear...

Refusal to take part is a choice, a vote in a way, right?

Refusal to participate is a choice.
No, it would not be a vote.

You guys know my views, I see no government as "legitimate". But I know there are many proponents of democracy on this site, and I am curious about how you guys answer this hypothetical.

 

[an anarchist]

Sooo, the legitimacy of democracy does not come from the voters?

 

[Alien826]

Some countries, like Australia, make voting compulsory. I'm not sure if that improves "democracy" or not. I believe it's OK to "abstain" by spoiling the voting paper, so really what is compulsory is turning up. My own feeling is that you can't compel genuine involvement, but I'd be interested in what our Aussie friends here have to say.

It's interesting that in the USA the president is often chosen by less than half of those actually voting, due to the ridiculous "electoral college" system. We can also say that in any close election around half the voters didn't want the person that won. If you want me to choose a better system, I'd go with a parliamentary system with proportional representation.

 

[Kathryn]

We are free to vote and that's the watershed.

 

[McBell]

Sooo, the legitimacy of democracy does not come from the voters?

 

[an anarchist]

View attachment 89474

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Alien826]

Sooo, the legitimacy of democracy does not come from the voters?

I didn't address the "what if nobody voted" question, as the candidates would vote for themselves. It's an interesting constitutional question though. What would they do if really nobody voted? I think they would have another election, as there would be no way to decide who to give the position to.

 

[an anarchist]

We are free to vote and that's the watershed.

What do you mean by watershed?

 

[McBell]

What do you mean by watershed?

A watershed moment is a turning point, the exact moment that changes the direction of an activity or situation. A watershed moment is a dividing point, from which things will never be the same. It is considered momentous, though a watershed moment is often recognized in hindsight.​

Watershed moment

The idiom watershed moment came into use in the mid-1800s. We will examine the meaning of the expression watershed moment, where it came from and some examples of its use in sentences. A watershed moment

grammarist.com

 

[ChristineM]

I have a hypothetical situation for you guys today: Suppose a democracy had a presidential election, but no one voted. What would that imply for the legitimacy of the government?

That hypothetical may seem too unrealistic for you, so let me throw at you another, more probable (though unlikely) hypothetical: What if, in the United States, less than half of the eligible voting population votes in the 2024 presidential election? What would that mean, if anything?

I suppose the question I am trying to ask and answer here is this: if "citizens" do not take part in a democratic election, is the democracy still "legitimate"? Suppose if less than half of the Americans eligible to vote, don't vote in this upcoming election. Regardless of who wins, can the victor call themselves truly democratically elected? Refusal to take part is a choice, a vote in a way, right?

You guys know my views, I see no government as "legitimate". But I know there are many proponents of democracy on this site, and I am curious about how you guys answer this hypothetical.

I'd demand a recount.

I think it depends on voters, not on those who don't vote. So if less than 50% voted the count would still be valid.

 

[HonestJoe]

You guys know my views, I see no government as "legitimate". But I know there are many proponents of democracy on this site, and I am curious about how you guys answer this hypothetical.

If literally nobody voted (not even the candidates themselves) there would clearly be some major reason to focus on.

Low turnouts can be an issue, but as long as all voters have a free opportunity to vote but some knowingly and willingly choose not to, that doesn't invalidate the election in any way. It'd be no different to them spoiling their ballot or voting "none of the above" (where it is an option).

Wider disengagement from or lack of faith in the political system is the common cause of low turnouts, and should be addressed on it's own basis.

 

[Callisto]

I have a hypothetical situation for you guys today: Suppose a democracy had a presidential election, but no one voted. What would that imply for the legitimacy of the government?

That hypothetical may seem too unrealistic for you, so let me throw at you another, more probable (though unlikely) hypothetical: What if, in the United States, less than half of the eligible voting population votes in the 2024 presidential election? What would that mean, if anything?

I suppose the question I am trying to ask and answer here is this: if "citizens" do not take part in a democratic election, is the democracy still "legitimate"? Suppose if less than half of the Americans eligible to vote, don't vote in this upcoming election. Regardless of who wins, can the victor call themselves truly democratically elected? Refusal to take part is a choice, a vote in a way, right?

You guys know my views, I see no government as "legitimate". But I know there are many proponents of democracy on this site, and I am curious about how you guys answer this hypothetical.

The winner of the election is determined by the electoral college and is the candidate who gets 270 electoral votes.

In most states, it's a winner takes all situation. Meaning, whichever candidate most citizens voted for, he or she wins the popular vote and, in turn, all the electors of the state. Regardless of how many citizens voted.

If, somehow, absolutely no one voted then the 20th Amendment would be engaged. Specifically, Section 3, which declares what happens if a President-elect dies before taking office or no one has qualified to be President when the new term begins. Or Section 4, which empowers Congress to enact procedures for choosing a President or Vice President should none of the candidates has received a majority of electoral votes.

• Amendment 20, Section 3
• Amendment 20, Section 4

There is also the US Code.

3 U.S. Code § 19 - Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act:

(1)If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.​

Suppose if less than half of the Americans eligible to vote, don't vote in this upcoming election. Regardless of who wins, can the victor call themselves truly democratically elected?

The US is a democratic republic, the government is elected by the citizens and derives it power from them. When elected government officials carry out their obligations per the Constitution and US Code, they are adhering to the will of the people.

 

[Yerda]

It would be awkward in the morning

 

[Kathryn]

What do you mean by watershed?

I mean, we are free to vote and that's the main point.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports such as football and hockey, that means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage. (from Wiki)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't address the "what if nobody voted" question, as the candidates would vote for themselves. It's an interesting constitutional question though. What would they do if really nobody voted? I think they would have another election, as there would be no way to decide who to give the position to.

Most places have provisions for what to do in the case of a tie. For some (e.g. US presidential elections), the decision gets referred to some other body (e.g. Congress). For others (e.g. the Canadian Parliament), the government stays until they either resign, are removed by the GG, or a new government is elected to replace them. For others (e.g. a lot of municipal elections), they literally draw the winner's name out of a hat.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

Dont even try.