> If, on the other hand, voter participation goes down noticeably it can drive change. Both parties will know they lost support and, more importantly for them, have voters to win over. It also opens the door for creating a real chance for a third party that doesn't exist when we all continue to accept the unofficial duopoly that started way back when Hamilton and Jefferson were tearing the union in two.
Is there a minimum turnout needed? I'm pretty sure there isn't.
All the diehards will always vote for the Dems or Reps.
And everyone else is not voting, not voting for an alternate candidate.
Sounds like the fewer swing voters there are, the better.
No there isn't a minimum turnout. Sitting out for an election means that whoever does still vote gets to decide the winner. St scale, though, a decrease in voter turnout would signal discontent with the system and the parties in charge. Those parties would likely respond to try to capture more voters and a third party may finally see a window that they could use to raise funds for a legitimate challenge to the two party system.
I have not seen that's happening anywhere. What actually happens is that parties will just focus on whoever votes and ignore the rest.
Sure, maybe if participation dropped suddenly to 20% there would be comments and reactions, but anything over 40% would barely get a few curious articles and no real difference.
Is there a minimum turnout needed? I'm pretty sure there isn't. All the diehards will always vote for the Dems or Reps. And everyone else is not voting, not voting for an alternate candidate.
Sounds like the fewer swing voters there are, the better.