
Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees - Dowwie
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
======
thomasfoster96
What astounds me the most is that party membership in the United States is
actually very high compared to most other countries (except for India).

Fewer than 200,000 Australians would currently be members of any political
party - representing less than 1.5% of the total voters (around 14 million) -
and that's being very generous with estimates of party membership figures.
Most AFL football clubs would have more members than the major political
parties.

Perhaps Australia is too different to compare the United States - compulsory
voting (90% turnout this year), shorter campaigns (this year's 8 week campaign
was twice as long as usual), elections being held on a weekend, preferential
voting (third party votes are still valuable) and the parliamentary system
(you never actually vote directly for the leader of the country) obviously
result in a very different attitude toward elections and politics.

~~~
icc97
I definitely agree. The article appears to be painting a very dark picture
that 91% don't want the candidates.

Where as this is just stating the obvious of what happens in every country
that first puts forward a leader of a party that is contending to win the
overall election.

~~~
matwood
It is quite an interesting time. My liberal friends are all irked because
Bernie got hosed by the DNC. My conservative friends are irked because the RNC
did not do more to stop Trump. Talk about a role reversal with the party of
the people and the party of the establishment.

Personally, I see so many problems with both candidates that it makes me sick
that I have to vote for the least worst one.

~~~
lettergram
You don't actually have to vote for the least worst one... I recommend looking
to third party candidates. The libertarian party has two pretty solid lineup
and polls third at the moment (like 11% or something this election cycle).

That being said, you can also protest vote by putting in "Edward Snowden" or
something.

Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least
worst option". You're essentially electing a temporary dictator (potentially
at least), please don't vote for someone you dislike. Even if you dislike one
less than the other, you still dislike them...

Try not to let fear influence you when selecting a leader. A leader needs to
guide and protect the group, not be the least bad member of the group.

~~~
kingnothing
To the sibling who said that voting for a third party accomplishes nothing,
that is incorrect. If a third party receives 5% of the overall vote, that
party's next presidential candidate becomes eligible to receive about $90M in
federal funding for the following election cycle under the Presidential
Election Campaign Fund.

[http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml](http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml)

Also, why can't I reply to siblings of this post?

~~~
mikeash
HN delays showing the reply link once conversations get to a certain depth, as
a way to slow down the conversation and put a damper on flame wars.

Anyway, I don't see what difference federal funding would make. They're still
not going to have a chance at winning or meaningfully affecting the policies
of the major parties. In the unlikely event they do manage to win, it's
basically mathematically guaranteed that they'll just displace one of the
other major parties and we'll be back to a two-party system again. This is, of
course, what happened in the mid 19th century when the Republican Party
displaced the Whigs. There's no way around it in a first-past-the-post system.
If you want third parties to be viable (and I sure do!) then you need
electoral reform, not protest votes.

~~~
kingnothing
Federal funding would help those candidates get national TV ads and in front
of more people in general. Then, with the added legitimacy of a 3rd party with
that kind of money to splash around, they would likely be included in more
prime time debates and other forms of media coverage. The two incumbent
parties would also start to pay attention to the newcomer. It isn't a 4 or 8
year fix, but I believe it would be a major step in the right direction for
this country.

~~~
mikeash
So they get some attention, and then they either fade out or take over. Either
way, we're back where we started. The problem isn't that third parties don't
get enough attention, the problem is that the way the electoral system is
designed, there can only be two significant parties. You might change the
names of those two parties, but that won't really do much.

~~~
xlxlxlx
In the case of the green party, it's part of their platform to do away with
FPTP voting, so potentially no, we wouldn't be back where we started.

------
awesomerobot
Our voting system really needs to change, it's completely absurd that it
hasn't just moved to a weekend or received special treatment as holidays.

~~~
Someone1234
Both solutions are less effective than mail in ballots, online voting, or
extending the vote duration (e.g. 7 days).

People just bring up a "voting holiday" because they want an extra holiday.
The reality is that many people would use the holiday to relax, go out of
town, or get stuff done and voting percentage wouldn't improve.

Ditto with weekends. People go out of town on the weekends, do you think
they're going to stop because of a pesky vote? Even if they did for one year
word would quickly spread that that is a "quiet" weekend and everyone would go
for that reason.

If you really want to improve voting: Drive through voting, like McDonald's,
that takes the same amount of time as McDonald's to do, and that you have a
seven day week within which to do. Literally make it a 5 minute job where you
don't even need to exit your vehicle.

People might scoff at that, call it lazy, but people ARE lazy. They want
minimum hassle, minimum time, and maximum value. That's why drive-through
places even exist.

~~~
awesomerobot
Good points. A 7-day duration would be hopefully flexible enough with everyone
and would be the most easy to implement.

------
the_duke
Personally, being more familiar with European parliamentary systems, I find it
quite astounding that the canidate selection is such an open an public
process.

In many countries, the parties select candidates internally and then present
them to the public. Letting non-party members vote or register just before
voting would be unthinkable there.

Then again, this is probably a necessary result of the US political system:
majority voting rules, therefore (basically) only two parties, and of course,
the US is huge and diverse.

The whole process is ridiculously long and expensive. But it's also a way to
get people familiar with the candidates early on.

~~~
kiiski
Edit (re: reply by dagss): I seem to have misunderstood the comment, but can't
delete anymore.

~~~
dagss
This is referring to who becomes candidate og Republican or Democratic
parties. I am sure anyone can become presidential candidate in just the same
way in the US - but not representing those parties.

------
msravi
I didn't know that felons weren't allowed to vote in the US - this was news to
me. Looks like it varies by state:
[http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...](http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286)

~~~
jacquesm
This is especially cruel because it doesn't take much to be labeled a felon in
the US.

~~~
brian_cloutier
"The New Jim Crow" is an excellent book on this. There's a chapter about how
this disproportionately affects young black men and disenfranchises them.

~~~
IpV8
Just bought this one, excited to start reading it when it arrives.

------
nkrisc
Theoretically this isn't an issue as this is just two political parties
choosing the candidate that want to support for the general election.
Political parties may choose their candidate however they like; they could
pick a name from a hat if they wanted to. The issue is these two parties are
so entrenched in the government as to essentially be legitimized as the only
viable parties.

------
the_duke
On a side note: I think this page is really well done.

It's rare that that much (programming) effort is put into a simple newspaper
article.

Anyone agree?

~~~
jaflo
Definitely, although the New York Times develops a lot more than other
newspapers do:
[http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/category/interactive/](http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/category/interactive/)

~~~
the_duke
They are one of the few newspapers that can possibly afford it, I guess.

------
rwmj
As I understand it, everyone could choose nominees (assuming you can hold your
nose and join one of the two major US parties), so this isn't really
interesting news? The only sad bit from my point of view is the number of
disenfranchised felons.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
In states that have caucuses it can be fairly tough for people working full-
time jobs to attend them. I don't think that represents a large share of the
popular vote, but it is a barrier to participation that requires more than
holding one's nose to overcome.

~~~
shah_s
That's just an excuse. There is early voting and most, if not all states,
legally mandate that a company give time off to employees to go vote.

~~~
tanderson92
Many caucuses disallow early voting and require a physical presence.

------
curiousgal
So what? if Americans focused more on congressional elections then things
could change. There's only so much a president can do.

~~~
DefaultUserHN
That's true. People act like the President has all the power. But that's now
how our government work. Power is divided between all the three branches of
the government. The President does not have all the power.

Those that fear Trump will become a dictator does not understand the checks
and balances of our government.

~~~
krapp
I'm opposed to Trump, possibly to an unreasonable degree, but I agree he's not
going to turn into a dictator. He can still screw things up royally, and
destroy what little civility in the political discourse there is in this
country by pandering to the alt-right, conspiracy theorist, nihilist fringe
and legitimizing them, but a President Trump would probably face more scrutiny
and intransigence than even Obama has. _Both_ parties would be trying their
hardest to discredit him for a second term, and discredit his attempts at a
legacy.

Of course people said the same thing about Obama... I'm still waiting for that
inevitable socialist coup he's supposed to pull off. Unfortunately, both the
Democrats and Republicans have made an art out of convincing people that the
Presidency is the only part of the government they should be engaged with.

~~~
DefaultUserHN
Agreed. Even if Trump wins, both parties and Congress, as well as Obama's
appointed Supreme Court judge will try their hardest to prevent Trump from
doing anything unconstitutional.

------
gotherewhere
Don't see why folk don't vote for Gary Johnson. He appeals to both Bernie
Sanders voters and disenfranchised Republicans.

~~~
omegaworks
Gary Johnson stated that he would eliminate the Board of Education. That is
the opposite position from Bernie Sanders' push to expand access to public
education. Don't take that as an endorsement of the status quo; right now
schools are locally funded, with wealthier districts providing higher quality
experiences and fighting vehemently against out-of-district access to those
resources. [0] However, the market-based solution that GJ and the Libertarians
propose looks like a step backwards, furthering the stratification between
rich and poor. A stronger national education system is necessary to enable
sensible resource allocation and equitable access to quality schools.

0\. [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/562/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with)

------
GarrisonPrime
Friendly reminder: Not voting can be a vote in and of itself. A vote of "no
confidence".

True, voting for an alternative candidate will take a percentage of the votes
away from Clinton or Trump, and having them win by a lower percentage would be
a satisfying way to sock it to the system and send a message. (Although,
knowing the media, if the stats started to look bad they would probably start
reporting Clinton and Trump vote percentages only as percentages of the
Clinton+Trump votes, rather than as percentages of all votes...)

But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving
support from only a small fraction of eligible voters? I think having a
President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good
message.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Friendly reminder: Not voting can be a vote in and of itself. A vote of "no
> confidence".

No, it can be a form of non-voting protest, which is very different from a
vote, including a vote of no confidence where such is an actual, meaningful
thing.

And its a fairly weak form of protest, given that its protesting by doing
exactly what lots of political actors expend considerable effort to get people
that disagree with them to do (if you can't be convinced to vote the way they
want, not voting or voting for an irrelevant option is _exactly_ what
political campaigns try to get you to do.)

> But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving
> support from only a small fraction of eligible voters?

It likely would be almost completely unnoticed.

> I think having a President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would
> send a pretty good message.

Sure, it would be a few percent less than Clinton in 1992 (23%) or Bush in
2000 (24%). So what? Why do you expect that there is a magic threshold where
suddenly it would be a "strong message" somewhere below the sub-25% of those
elections and 15-17%?

------
UnoriginalGuy
Can I just say the visualisation on this article is fantastic. Worth checking
out even if you have little interest in the topic in the title.

~~~
piva00
NY Times has been impressing me a lot with their online editions. To the point
I'm considering to actually pay for the content.

Another very good visualisation from them is the Panama Channel article
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/22/world/americas...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/22/world/americas/panama-
canal.html)

~~~
mavhc
Bit buggy though, the animations stop if you scroll too fast, including the
one that counts up to the number of million people in USA, if you scroll past
too fast it ends up below the actual number, causing confusion

------
jccalhoun
I don't see a problem. They are the Republican and Democratic party
candidates. The members of those parties can nominate whomever they want.
There's nothing in the constitution that says anything about how political
parties chose their candidates. Primaries didn't always exist
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_pri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History)

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>I don't see a problem. They are the Republican and Democratic party
candidates. The members of those parties can nominate whomever they want.

If there's no legal constraint on how the parties select candidates for
office, why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence?

~~~
chrisseaton
> why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence

I didn't think they did. Do they? Can't anyone apply to be on the ballot as
long as they demonstrate a reasonable level of support?

~~~
tanderson92
Yes, but the parties allegedly have used the legal system to harm other
candidates' efforts at ballot access:

> In 2004, Democratic operatives were especially zealous in their efforts
> against my campaign. They hired private investigators to harass my
> campaign’s petition circulators in their homes in Ohio and Oregon and
> falsely threatened them with criminal prosecution for fake names that
> saboteurs had signed on their petitions, according to sworn affidavits from
> the workers and letters containing threats that were presented in court. Our
> petitions were also disqualified on arbitrary grounds: In Ohio, complaints
> submitted in court and to the office of the Secretary of State by groups of
> Democratic voters led officials there to invalidate our petitions. They
> disqualified hundreds of signatures on one list, for instance, because of a
> discrepancy involving the petition circulator’s signature. In Oregon,
> Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury retroactively applied certain
> rules in a way that suddenly rendered our previously compliant petitions
> invalid.

> Democrats and their allies (some later reimbursed by the DNC, according to
> both campaign finance reports and a party official in Maine who testified
> under oath) enlisted more than 90 lawyers from more than 50 law firms to
> file 29 complaints against my campaign in 18 states and with the Federal
> Election Commission for the express purpose of using the cost and delay of
> litigation to drain our resources. “We wanted to neutralize his campaign by
> forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things,” operative
> Toby Moffett told The Washington Post in 2004.

> Democrats falsely accused my campaign of fraud in state after state. In
> Pennsylvania, they forced us off the ballot after challenging more than
> 30,000 signatures on spurious technical grounds. My running mate, Peter
> Camejo, and I were ordered to pay more than $81,000 in litigation costs the
> plaintiffs, a group of Democratic voters, said they incurred. In an effort
> to collect, their law firm, Reed Smith ,which the DNC also hired in that
> cycle, froze my personal accounts at several banks for eight years. A
> criminal prosecution by the state attorney general later revealed that
> Pennsylvania House Democrats had, illegally at taxpayer expense, prepared
> the complaints against our campaign, and several people were convicted of
> related felonies. A federal court in Pennsylvania ultimately struck down the
> state law used against me that had led to the order that I pay the
> litigation costs. But Reed Smith was still allowed to keep $34,000 it
> withdrew from my accounts, because state courts wouldn’t let me present
> evidence that could have permitted me to recover the money.

By Ralph Nader
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/ralph-
nader-why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-as-a-democrat/)

~~~
chrisseaton
Right well that does sound like unfair behaviour, but it's not a legally
enforced monopoly is it? Which is what was claimed.

~~~
tanderson92
I mean, apart from how they used (abused) the legal system to ensure their
monopoly on voters continued, no there is no legally enforced monopoly...

~~~
chrisseaton
I think 'legal monopoly' implies that there is some legal ruling which
enforces the monopoly. You said yourself that what they are doing is an abuse.
Just because it involves lawyers doesn't make it 'legal'.

But ultimately the fact that there are independents on ballot papers proves
clearly that there is no monopoly, legal or otherwise, by any definition at
all.

~~~
tanderson92
That may be clear to you, but to others the fact that the legal system was
utilized to leverage the existing parties' power over smaller parties' ability
to reach voters is what indicates a legal monopoly.

Besides all that, I don't understand how you say there wasn't a legal ruling
which enforced the monopoly, when I just presented several examples in which
there were.

~~~
chrisseaton
You and I must simply have different understanding of the word monopoly and
what it means to legally enforce one, so I guess we're not going to convince
each other.

Gary Johnson is standing in fifty states isn't he? He's not doing that
illegally is he? So there is no monopoly. If there is then it's not being
enforced, legally or illegally.

~~~
tanderson92
I didn't claim there was a monopoly this year, though, did I. In fact the GOP
establishment would want Johnson to stand in 50 states as many of them oppose
Trump and resent that he has taken over their party.

Some would call that a straw man argument: establishing a fact I never
disputed.

On the other hand, there is evidence presented above that that occurred in
previous elections (2004, 2000).

~~~
chrisseaton
> why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence

That was the original question (from someone else). It sounds like we've
agreed that the answer is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they don't'.

~~~
tanderson92
I don't agree with that. What I agree with is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year
they haven't exercised the option that they have to do so'. As I said earlier,
Johnson poses no threat to the GOP, and Stein isn't seen as a significant
threat (and isn't).

~~~
chrisseaton
I can sort of understand that you mean that you think they have the option to
have a monopoly, if they felt they needed to exercise it.

------
pjc50
I call this "agonizingly slow runoff voting", the opposite of instant runoff
voting. The French presidential election is similar, although the first round
all the candidates are considered as a single pool rather than two party-
orientated pools.

IRV and proportional systems produce 'external' coalitions at the government
level. FPTP produces ' _internal_ ' coalitions, which is why the Republican
party looks so strange from the outside.

------
bad_user
These 9% are representing a majority, since a lot of people didn't go to vote.

~~~
trolly
Considering both nominees have the highest disapproval rates I would say your
statement is almost certainly incorrect.

If anything, these 9% are representing a fundamental flaw in our first past
the post system.

~~~
bad_user
Why is it incorrect?

According to the statistic, 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year
and about 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all. Add to that 103
million that are not eligible for voting. So if I'm not mistaken, only 18.5%
voted in the primaries.

You mention they have the highest disapproval rates, but how is disapproval
expressed if not by voting?

~~~
tanderson92
What if they were denied the chance to vote due to onerous voting restrictions
(closed primaries)? Clinton has horrible negatives, but the state party of NY
forces voters to be registered by October of the previous year (!!!) for a
late-April primary.

------
jorgeleo
I found funny that there are more non-citizens than Hillary or Trump voters

~~~
VLM
Not very funny for them, because their polling stats are extremely skewed
politically, resulting in amnesty turning into a political football. If
illegals voted perfectly 50:50 D:R they would have gotten amnesty decades ago
and everything would have been reformed and sensible for generations, but its
seen as an automatic source of "D" votes therefore as long as we have "D" and
"R" they'll fight over it rather than fix it. A one line summary of why our
immigration system is all screwed up, is most people who want to come here
want to vote "D" and that riles up both the "D" and "R" parties therefore
nothing can ever be fixed.

~~~
jorgeleo
Except undocumented cannot vote

------
kr7
Trump got the most votes of any Republican candidate in history. It probably
would have been lower than 9% if Trump hadn't run.

~~~
Eutow
Is it pertinent to point out that he also garnered the most votes against him
than any Republican candidate in history?

~~~
kr7
How many people really voted _against_ him, though?

The media thought that everyone not voting for him was voting against him.
They assumed that once the field narrowed voters would rally around another
candidate and defeat Trump. That never happened. If the voters' goal was to
beat Trump, they would have done it.

By that logic, Obama had a record number of votes "against" him too, with
19,585,539 (53%) "against" him in a 3 man race, compared to Trump with
17,151,110 (55%) "against" him in a 5 man race.

------
scotty79
There should be a way in the general elections to reject both candidates.

~~~
lostapathy
Vote libertarian?

~~~
humanrebar
Johnson is not a very good libertarian, ironically.

~~~
stirner
He is still far more so than the other candidates.

~~~
humanrebar
The remaining candidates? Sure, but that's a pretty low bar. There were others
vying for the libertarian nomination. I'd argue that Rand Paul is a better
libertarian than Johnson, even.

------
theorique
Rephrased another way, relatively few voters actually (1) register and (2)
vote in the party primaries. These registered voters apparently represent the
"most politically involved" 10% of the overall population. (It's also somewhat
misleading to include minors or non-citizen residents in the denominator when
they aren't able to vote - it makes the result artificially small.)

The primary system, while still susceptible to party insiders, is a lot more
democratic than a system where political parties pick their candidates and say
to the electorate "these are your choices, take it or leave it". (I won't
address whether "more democratic" is a good thing, as that's a whole different
can of worms.)

------
lintiness
the implication is that given interest / participation of a greater percent of
the population, the candidates would be different. unlikely.

------
laichzeit0
I don't understand the problem. This is exactly what statistics addresses. Is
that 9% a good enough random sample of the entire population, or not? If not,
then what is the error 5%, 10%? Actually 9% is a really good sample.

~~~
thomasfoster96
It's 9% of the most politically active and engaged section of the population.
It's not a random cross section of the entirety of the US population.

~~~
VLM
Certainly there exists a value X where 100-X percent of the population is not
engaged at all and is little more than a source of random numbers or
demographic counts.

If X is 10% then its an excellent measure of the will of the actively thinking
electorate and its not the fault of the statistician that Americans don't care
about politics.

If X is 50% or so then there's 4 semi-motivated voters per primary voter which
is getting fuzzy.

Note that about 20% of the population vote in non-presidential elections and
50% vote in presidential elections. I'd propose that the delta is due to
tradition and heavy social signalling to get out the vote, but that 30% don't
really care and absent intense PR activity in support of voting, would not
vote. Unfortunately 20% is too high to clearly support the first criteria and
20% is too low to support the second criteria.

I think its really annoying that there is no mathematically trustworthy answer
to is 9% enough. Annoyingly its probably good enough to not be ridiculously
far off and bad enough to not be correct a significant amount of time.

------
equivocates
The article implies an indictment of Clinton & Trump. As if they were
nominated inspire of the will of the vast majority of the people. But it's
actually an indictment of the American public for failing to vote.

~~~
stevenmays
No, you have to be registered to a political party to vote in primaries in
most states. If you're registered independent you don't get a chance to vote
unless that state has open primaries.

------
vorotato
Let's not forget it was embarrassingly painful to vote in the primaries this
year. There were people who waited in lines for hours and never got to vote.

------
TimJRobinson
So why does the USA still have first past the post presidential voting? Is
someone, anyone, in the government pushing for this to change? It seems
painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that switching to a better voting
system where you can still vote for 3rd party candidates and not have your
vote go to waste would be a huge improvement.

~~~
delecti
The electoral college is defined in the Constitution, and changing that is
never easy. Anybody with the power to change things from the top is probably
up there because of taking advantage of the way things currently work.

------
ciethrenn
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GaryJohnson/comments/4vq33l/choose_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/GaryJohnson/comments/4vq33l/choose_wisely_i_spent_some_free_time_making_this/)
vote gary johnson

------
benevol
The poll number timeline of the 2 parties:
[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge...](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)

------
eximius
Can we just find someone _reaaally_ moderate or even someone who contractually
obligates themselves to doing literally nothing in office and then vote for
them? Literally any 3rd party candidate we can all agree on to vote for
instead of these two.

~~~
awinder
I'm curious about what, in the current state of America, screams "we can just
do nothing for the next 8 years and it'll all be good"

~~~
eximius
I think nothing is objectively better than the results we'd get from either
candidate.

We will not improve our situation, but I don't believe we'll devolve into
chaos either. With Trump he might bomb someone or aggravate existing problems
or something else unimaginably stupid. With Hillary we'll just see an increase
in corruption and an expansion of the rights of corporations at the costs of
the individual.

------
elicash
This is the same percentage that chose Obama and McCain.

------
hammock
I would expect it to be an order or magnitude smaller than the general, just
on the pure physics of it. If it were <1% this would be a story.

------
icc97
I don't see how this would be different from any other election with new
candidates from both parties.

~~~
j-c-h-e-n-g
I was sort of thinking the same thing - though more about how I hope they
extend this visualization to past presidential elections.

------
ErrantX
More depressing is the ~40% of the eligible electorate who don't vote at all.

~~~
afarrell
Even more depressing than that is the larger number of eligible electorate who
don't bother to vote in elections that are only for local and legislative
candidates.

------
coliveira
That's why this is called "primaries", not election. The primaries are
supposed to chose candidates, not the president. Assuming that they're not
representative just because of that is trying to stretch reality.

------
circa
T-shirt link is relevant to discussion. So i'll leave this here.

[https://www.teepublic.com/show/496947-i-already-hate-our-
nex...](https://www.teepublic.com/show/496947-i-already-hate-our-next-
president-t-shirt)

------
sorokod
Exactly zero people voted for the UK's new prime minister.

------
Kinnard
Great Data-Visualization Narrative, despite the bad news . . .

------
jjawssd
This isn't hacker news

~~~
jokermatt999
You're getting downvoted because this article is actually not an example of
the NYT's slanted coverage. Don't get me wrong, they've had some shamefully
distorted articles (especially the infamous updated Bernie article), but this
is just a short data visualization.

