Just over half of interviewees (51%) in a Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University study, who identified as “people of faith,” responded that they are likely to vote in the presidential election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The “people of faith” label is given to those who identify with a recognized religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism or Islam.

The study found that approximately 104 million people under the “people of faith” umbrella are not expected to vote this election, including 41 million born-again Christians and 32 million who regularly go to church.

  • Countess425@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    We live in a two party system. Not voting for your guy is essentially a vote for the other guy. Especially when elections are this close.

    • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      That’s the most common misconception. Not voting for your guy does NOT mean a vote for other guy.

      Here is an example:

      Let’s say you don’t want candidate B to win but you chose to not vote against B and just sit at home or write in your dog’s name instead.

      Candidate A: gets 1000 votes

      Candidate B: gets 1002 votes

      100 people like you didn’t vote or wrote their dog’s name on ballot.

      B wins!

      This is what I meant by “actively voting against” vs just not voting.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        So not voting for your guy (candidate A) lead to the other guy (candidate B) winning. Seems like you agree with the premise that in our 2 party system, not voting for the candidate you want directly helps the candidate you don’t want.

      • Countess425@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        By your own logic if A wins by 1 vote and you chose not to vote for your guy, B, you essentially gave your vote to A. Good job.

        • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          By your own logic if A wins by 1 vote and you chose not to vote for your guy, B, you essentially gave your vote to A. Good job.

          When I don’t vote in the upcoming US elections, my lack of a vote will not become one vote for either candidate. I will cast no votes, and the fact of my existence will not be measured on any ballot or counting system.

          By not voting for the candidate you prefer, the candidate you prefer gets one fewer votes. That’s it.

          • Countess425@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            That is accurate in a theoretical bubble, but in practice, in a two party system, in an incredibly close race, it’s simply not true.

            • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I do vote. I cast one vote. I don’t vote. I don’t cast one vote.

              That is, objectively, the entirety of the truth on the matter.

              Please explain to me how me not voting Democrat creates an extra vote for the Republicans. The votes for the Republican candidate(s) remain(s) the same. The difference between the votes is different, of course, by that one vote.

              • NABDad@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                I would point out that the difference between the two votes is the number that matters.