(about 20% are too young, or not citizens, so they can't vote.

Too young, former felons, whatever.

I'm assuming that the OP's headline accurately reflects the article. If so it's a bullshit article, because it's a completely useless statistic if it includes people who could not possibly vote, such as 1-day-old babies.

So whats the point of this story NYT?

1) For whatever reason, 91% feel it makes no difference?

2) 91% have no idea where their polling place is?

3) 91% only follow sports and scandal until Labor Day?

4) 91% of the country is composed of idiots?

I am certain that more reasons could be added.

"I don't want to be bothered with jury duty!"

That's what happens in Ohio, anyway. They get potential jurors from voter registration lists.

And I am betting that many if not most of the "never voters" complain constantly about politicians.

The biggest complainers in our union local are those who never attend meetings.

Maybe the fact that they don't want to serve on a jury is more related to their general unwillingness to participate in our democracy?

who do participate.

I was a steward and local officer for many years. When going into offices, it was amazing how many invisible (at meetings) members knew my job far better than I did.

That's the "rub" with internet activists (bloggers of all shades and beliefs). "If you wanna win, you've got to play."

Years of participating locally, running for office, building coalitions.

strawman swipe at Hillary.

The majority of DEMOCRATS voted for Hillary by a wide margin. She garnered more than 4 million votes than anyone else.

Democrats choose who their nominee is, and it obvious that some folks don't grasp that

It is time to move on

... dies.

More Democrats wanted Hillary, and that is why she won. She won by over 4 million votes.

Guess what, every election the majority of Registered voters in that respective party choose their nominees.

If someone doesn't want to be registered with that political party, THEN THEY DON'T GET TO CHOOSE

Of course this is the typical NY Times, backhanded Hillary bashing pushing the theme that "Hillary is not well liked"

It is crap like this why the MSM has no credibility.

Those who aren't registered DEMOCRATS don't get to choose who the Democratic nominee is.

DEAL WITH IT

"both sides are the same crowd" all the time. Most claim to vote, I guess, but they tend to bitch about the '2-party system.' They look down on participants, too.

They're the ones who continually push for the 'open primaries' which have been screwing up the system the last few years. Looking at the recent primary, I see one '3rd party' candidate, and numerous races with 2 dems in them.

they might understand that often a minority conservative element gets elected with less than 30 or 40 % of the vote. "Oh but their conservatives are our liberals" is usually their response. Tell that to the UK who have been struggling with cuts to the social safety network while banks have been enriched and the well to do have prospered every bit as much as here. Brexit was a cry of desperation from those who feel they have no voice despite multiple parties.

Thank you for your patience, still-one!

whom substantially fewer people wanted as president.

Some people actually believe that their "inaction" gets noticed and "sends a message".

It does neither.

Hit and run OP

to get to that number? (I won't mention felons, because I believe felons should, in general, have the right to vote.) That's pretty weird.

Whatever. Of people who voted, the majority chose Clinton and Trump. For the rest who are too disinterested to vote, tough nuggies.

So it's not really representative of "all people who voted."

Per article.

Pretty sure we hear this "well both candidates are unpopular" meme every time Trump does some douchebag thing. Have come to expect that from folks like Andrea Mitchell, but sort of embarrassing for the OP to be spouting it here.

The world is run by people who show up.

running."

And probably true in every other primary season. Sad but true. Not a commentary on 2016 but on America.

with electoral activism. You'd be surprised at how many DUers, including some who have been prolific posters, don't vote in primary elections. I asked one of those about that, back in 2012, and got a "nunnofyourbidness" replies. There are fewer on DU who don't participate in general elections, but some of those post here, too.

The United States is a democracy of the minority of its population, and has been for a long time. A minority of people eligible to vote actually do vote, even in presidential elections. Of that minority, elections are decided by a majority of those who bother to vote. But, that majority is a rather small minority of those who actually could vote if they bothered to.

That's one of the reasons for our poor representation by our elected officials.

I used to think it was possible to get a larger segment of the population to take part in elections. I no longer think that. So, I focus my attention on those who will actually turn out and vote, while still trying to increase that number through voter registration.

We make a mockery of the concept of democracy in this country through our non-participation. By failing to participate, we lose our voice in how our nation is run. It's a very sad commentary on our system of government, really.

I disagree both with that meme and with the numbers the Times used.

... if you are going by what seems to be the OPs intended point.

hit and run...is a good description of this post.

doesn't find participating in the democratic process very fulfilling or interesting.

But, in regards to your statement, most people don't hold most politicians in a great deal of respect or admiration. Take your own poll. Ask almost any average citizen what they think of politics or politicians in general.

Anyone of those who didn't vote could have voted in the primary...and changed things up ...they chose not to. It is their right. Not everyone cares about politics. We have our nominee who is kicking some butt I might add. I have seen your posts. I know who you support this election...so I don't even see why you care. Those who don't vote or who toss their votes away by voting for useless third party candidates like the Greens...or who vote for Trump...especially if they live in swing states and the election is close are not helping anyone ...not even themselves in the end. And I often wonder about those who would condemn millions to the tender mercies of Trump...innocent people so they can protest vote or whatever and feel superior as the progressive movement crumbles because if Trump won he would crush all progressive accomplishment for thirty years or so...you see elections do matter and so do the courts. I feel the fault lies with those who don't vote or who vote for useless crappy third party candidates.

1. They could have voted for one of the other candidates in the Democratic Party or Republican Party including Bernie Sanders. In fact beyond the 9% some did, but not more than Hillary or Trump received.

2. They could have joined the Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, or one of other several dozen parties to show they were unhappy with the choices in the two main parties. Few if any did that. In fact that would be a real protest action that would get people's attention. If 5 million people suddenly joined the Green or Libertarian parties, that would be reported. They could still vote for Hillary or Trump, ensuring that whoever was the greater evil in their viewpoint didnt win while still being shown to have joined another party.

3. They could have run for office themselves, or gotten one of their family, friends, coworkers, etc., to run if they didn't see folks they liked running for office.

Of course none of those feed a negative narrative about Hillary or the US electoral process.

What's your point?

What's your point?

but not here.

The vast majority chose to go along with whatever the rest decided to do by choosing not to participate.

I don't believe in non-voting as a means of participating or making a statement.

Anybody who votes third party or chooses not to vote has decided they are just fine and dandy with the decision that ends up being made.

They are actually voting for whoever the ones who vote for one of the two candidates who can win chooses to win.

So if Trump wins, EVERYBODY who votes for Johnson, Stein, or decides not to vote actually cast a vote for Trump.

You cannot change that FACT.

What this is basically showing is that of all ELIGIBLE voters (some 221 million Americans) nearly 73% either don't vote at all or DO vote, but not in the primaries. So 73% of all ELIGIBLE voters who are of age, without a felony on their record, and are not immigrants who are ineligible...are NOT deciding who our next leader will be. A VERY VERY small percentage of the population is actually participating. Now yes, some will say that's their fault...at the same time though it's not the sign of a strong, vibrant democracy and it does show that just because someone won the nomination, doesn't mean they have the support of a majority of the population.

Hillary Clinton is supported here at DU.

for whomever heads the ticket.

From their own statistics at the link: total of Americans is 324M, but 103M can't vote, so really 221M potential voters and about 30M each voted for Clinton or for Trump. So 30/221 = 13.6%.

Actually sounds worse than the article.

about the outcome.