The New York Times Just Accidentally Proved US Elections are Illegitimate


The New York Times published an interesting analysis Monday morning that showed only 9 percent of the country voted for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in the primary elections. That figure counts all citizens of the U.S., including children and felons — neither of whom have the right to vote.

When counting only eligible voters, the number rises to a paltry 14 percent. This is the total between Trump and Clinton combined, which means the number of people who voted for just one of these candidates is actually much lower.

While these statistics seem surprisingly low, the New York Times reminds us that the data on primary voters this year is nearly identical to figures on voter participation in the 2008 primaries. While many Americans may be disconcerted by these statistics, which show that a very small minority of voters are choosing the candidates who will eventually rule over the rest of the country, this is nothing new.


The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic where the entire population is represented by people elected to do their bidding. But how can politicians claim to have a legitimate mandate to create laws that affect the entire population when they are put in place by a fraction of said population?

General elections, though, historically attract more voters than primaries do. In the 2012 election, President Obama was elected with 51.1 percent of the popular vote, compared to 47.2 for Mitt Romney. But only 57.5 percent of the voting population cast their ballots, meaning President Obama still only secured the votes of 29 percent of voters.

While the media tells a tale of a divided country, wherein 50 percent of the public falls into the Democratic Party and the other half aligns with the Republican Party, the truth is much more concerning. The U.S. government is elected by a handful of dedicated partisan voters, and disenfranchised non-voters often have that minority’s opinion forced onto them. This isn’t democracy, it’s rule by the minority. But it gets worse.

As Anti-Media recently reported, a new poll from Pew Research Center shows the most ardent voters are not necessarily proud of their own party’s platform; rather, they are simply more scared of the other party’s. “In other words, a voter’s dislike of others is a greater driving force in politics than their affinity for their own party. As the Pew survey found, ‘those who associate three or more negative traits with people in the opposing party (as 37% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans do) participate in politics at the highest rates.’”

This trend can basically explain the entire 2016 presidential election so far. But it still gets even worse.

Regardless of whether or not hyper-partisans’ candidates of choice win or lose, those politicians rarely actually represent their views — nor do they care to. Rather, as a 2014 Cambridge University study, often referred to as the “oligarchy study,” concluded, “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.” This research reinforces a recent Boston Globe article entitled, “Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.”

This brings us to the final question: are voters to blame for their lack of participation?

No, they are not. It’s not the public’s fault for becoming disillusioned with a system that has forgotten them. All the votes in the world would not have stopped the DNC from tampering with the 2016 primary, and nearly all the candidates who are legitimately elected by voters don’t bother listening to them once they get to Washington, anyway.

We don’t have a democratic system anymore. We have a government made up of politicians who were elected by a small minority of hyper-partisan voters, and that political apparatus rules in the interests of an even smallerminority of hyper-rich elites. The fact that American politicians cannot inspire an actual majority to vote for them renders the current elections illegitimate.

At this point, a protest non-vote or voting third-party is more effective than an angry partisan vote because you are sending a clear message that the majority does not consent to our supposed mandated rulers. Now it’s time for the people who didn’t vote for the politicians in power to have their representation.

And about that timeless saying, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain” — perhaps the opposite is true.

This article (The New York Times Just Accidentally Proved US Elections are Illegitimate) is an opinion editorial (OP-ED). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Anti-Media.You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nick Bernabeand Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Gage Skidmore. If you spot a typo, email [email protected].


Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here



  1. Felons can vote and hold many offices, it depends on the states, some like missouri allow for full reinstated voting rights after the sentance is completed. As it should, new studies just released show that felons are less likely to commit a crime afterward than a non felon in a workplace.

  2. Hmmm. Best scenario moving into the next election:- Trump gets dumped from the GOP (which is a distinct possibility), he then runs as an independent – splitting the conservative vote. Then Sanders could also run as an independent – splitting the democrats vote. With four (or more) candidates on the ticket, Bernie would have a real chance at winning. Only then can things be reformed.

  3. DJR96 You don’t understand the system. If your scenario played out, none of the candidates would be likely to get 270 electoral votes. Then, it would go to the very conservative House of Representatives, which would certainly not elect a Democrat or Democratic Socialist as president. They would put in whomever they want.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here