Are these percentages of the population, or the electorate?
A quick couple websearches suggests that 80% is the turnout as a percentage of the electorate, not of the population. The electorate in Norway’s about 75% of the population.
Election reporting I’ve seen seems to always almost solely focus on only the % of votes from the turnout. Not only are the no-votes not being counted, but the not-registered-to-vote and not-eligible-to-vote likewise are dismissed without mention.
I recall some elections and referendums where I’ve been, where there was a close result between two options, around 51-55% to the victors. That’s a win, with 51% of the vote. And that’s all they’d say. Oft even outspoken in their intent to have you think this 51% of the population… when the turnout may have only been 50% of the electorate, and the electorate only 50% of the population. And so once one has done the maths during various votes, taking into consideration the turnout, and the electorate, one can find some winners do not have the majority of the population (slim majority or otherwise) as the media present, and instead may be claiming the right to power (dog-whistlingly euphemistically “the right to represent”), with as little as 11% of the population having voted for them (/ for the proposal in referendum). “Majority rule.”? Not nearly as much as the corporation wants us swallowing the placatium.
Bouncing by, seeing this again, 80% & 75% means 60%. So before that many could assuredly mean the will of a simple majority of people across the whole population (barring other coercion/corruption/etc), there’d need be 80% of the vote.
Tragic irony is the self fulfilling feedback loop born of pessimistic defeatism, and misplaced intentions misrepresenting no-votes as a voting block who’s voices are heard, driving more impression of invalidity, more no-votes, … leading to even fewer having a say [by the voting system].
More democracy, more voice, more say, more nuance, makes it more inviting, contrast “do you want to be punched from this side, or from the same side?” presented as “choice” and “change” and “freedom” and “democracy”. And a lot more chance of getting that kind of thing, with more people more aware of what’s going on in each our systems, past the misleading misrepresentations and misframings from corporate media.
Are these percentages of the population, or the electorate?
A quick couple websearches suggests that 80% is the turnout as a percentage of the electorate, not of the population. The electorate in Norway’s about 75% of the population.
Election reporting I’ve seen seems to always almost solely focus on only the % of votes from the turnout. Not only are the no-votes not being counted, but the not-registered-to-vote and not-eligible-to-vote likewise are dismissed without mention.
I recall some elections and referendums where I’ve been, where there was a close result between two options, around 51-55% to the victors. That’s a win, with 51% of the vote. And that’s all they’d say. Oft even outspoken in their intent to have you think this 51% of the population… when the turnout may have only been 50% of the electorate, and the electorate only 50% of the population. And so once one has done the maths during various votes, taking into consideration the turnout, and the electorate, one can find some winners do not have the majority of the population (slim majority or otherwise) as the media present, and instead may be claiming the right to power (dog-whistlingly euphemistically “the right to represent”), with as little as 11% of the population having voted for them (/ for the proposal in referendum). “Majority rule.”? Not nearly as much as the corporation wants us swallowing the placatium.
Bouncing by, seeing this again, 80% & 75% means 60%. So before that many could assuredly mean the will of a simple majority of people across the whole population (barring other coercion/corruption/etc), there’d need be 80% of the vote.
Tragic irony is the self fulfilling feedback loop born of pessimistic defeatism, and misplaced intentions misrepresenting no-votes as a voting block who’s voices are heard, driving more impression of invalidity, more no-votes, … leading to even fewer having a say [by the voting system].
More democracy, more voice, more say, more nuance, makes it more inviting, contrast “do you want to be punched from this side, or from the same side?” presented as “choice” and “change” and “freedom” and “democracy”. And a lot more chance of getting that kind of thing, with more people more aware of what’s going on in each our systems, past the misleading misrepresentations and misframings from corporate media.
Ah, good point.