None of the Above
VINNY GOOMBA
Posts: 1,818
How's about this as a choice on your ballot for 2008-- or any election for that matter?
It's simple:
You don't like Bum "A," "B," or "C," etc...? Vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE and they all get thrown out-- and let someone else take their shot in a month.
It seems the 2 biggest jerks from the major parties are always the ones that win their party's nominations. They've kissed the most ass, slinged the most mud, solicited the most $ from corporations, etc... If people really want either of these 2, they'll vote for them. If the majority is against putting either of them in office... well, that's a lot of time and money wasted on THEIR part, and their supporters. Now, if there's more monetary risk supporting a politician, maybe corporations, pac's, and whatever will be less likely to waste money on someone who has a lesser chance of being elected?
Cause really, it's not like any of these people have anything to lose anyway. How about you give them something to lose? Let's see how much they care then.
If one of them wins... good for them, maybe even good for the people. If both of them lose (None of the Above WINS)-- Boom. Both of them are eliminated from the election. Next.
Let the next set of candidates step up, with less time for campaigning / accepting dirty money, etc... It's not like all elections are even decided right away anymore anyway. For example, the last 2 presidential elections here in the US-- after all the time and deliberation, we still don't know whether or not the presidency was truly "won" by someone.
Primaries in themselves are the root of the partisan problem. How many times do people vote for person that has the best chance of representing their party (the "stronger candidate"), rather than voting for someone who they actually agree with? I think this idea is a "check" on the primary process.
In presidential elections at the very least, How many times in the past would you have actually voted for "None of the Above"?
Potential problem:
Would anyone ever get elected?
I'd love to know all your thoughts.
Thanks!
It's simple:
You don't like Bum "A," "B," or "C," etc...? Vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE and they all get thrown out-- and let someone else take their shot in a month.
It seems the 2 biggest jerks from the major parties are always the ones that win their party's nominations. They've kissed the most ass, slinged the most mud, solicited the most $ from corporations, etc... If people really want either of these 2, they'll vote for them. If the majority is against putting either of them in office... well, that's a lot of time and money wasted on THEIR part, and their supporters. Now, if there's more monetary risk supporting a politician, maybe corporations, pac's, and whatever will be less likely to waste money on someone who has a lesser chance of being elected?
Cause really, it's not like any of these people have anything to lose anyway. How about you give them something to lose? Let's see how much they care then.
If one of them wins... good for them, maybe even good for the people. If both of them lose (None of the Above WINS)-- Boom. Both of them are eliminated from the election. Next.
Let the next set of candidates step up, with less time for campaigning / accepting dirty money, etc... It's not like all elections are even decided right away anymore anyway. For example, the last 2 presidential elections here in the US-- after all the time and deliberation, we still don't know whether or not the presidency was truly "won" by someone.
Primaries in themselves are the root of the partisan problem. How many times do people vote for person that has the best chance of representing their party (the "stronger candidate"), rather than voting for someone who they actually agree with? I think this idea is a "check" on the primary process.
In presidential elections at the very least, How many times in the past would you have actually voted for "None of the Above"?
Potential problem:
Would anyone ever get elected?
I'd love to know all your thoughts.
Thanks!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a voting reform that asks the voter to rank the candidates in order of preference. It is simple, common-sense reform that will greatly improve our democratic process.
IRV has many benefits including giving voters a wider range of choices, eliminating the spoiler factor with third-party candidates, saving taxpayer money, and decreasing negative campaigning.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Very interesting... I'm gonna check this out. Thanks for the link.
I hear what you're saying... The question is, how many "core voters" are there really?
There will always be people who are gonna vote democrat or republican no matter what... Even if given the option to throw out both of the candidates.
I think with the last presidential election, we saw 2 choices...
"This guy sucks (Kerry)," and "This guy sucks as bad, or worse, but has gotten us into a mess, and any transition would be even more harmful than keeping this jerk around (Bush)."
You could see it in his approval ratings right after the election... People still didn't like him, but felt like things would get screwed up less.
By that same token, "None of the Above" still might not have worked out-- although, we know that's probably what half the country was feeling.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
Badnarik - Libertarian
Cobb - Green
Nader - Reform
Peroutka - Constitution
Maybe if people would consider these options, something would change. But usually its the "I dont want to waste my vote" syndrome that keeps these parties down.
See post #2.
I hear ya. I voted along one of these lines last major election. Unfortunately, I don't think people ever go deep enough to research any of these people, and I'd love it if they did.
I guess, it's really all about finding the in-between. Finding people who do have the means to reach out, but keeping them honest. People may not know about Nader or Cobb, or whoever-- but they do know that they are unhappy enough with the current situation to eliminate certain individuals from the pool. I think "None of the Above" could set the stage for people seeking alternative / 3rd or 4th party candidates. I think it would level the playing field for them.
Anyway, as you can tell, I'm still working out the bugs on all this,
Excellent question... forgot to list this under my Potential Problems section... This is one problem I have with it all. I imagine by the 2nd or 3rd time, that things would be figured out, but obviously that doesn't have to happen, or isn't guaranteed to happen.
For now, put down my official response as "I'll hold it down until we figure all this shit out."
Might be better than W, right?
Perhaps bump the elections up to July or so, to be safe?
Still workin out the bugs... still workin out the bugs...
Haha, I asked somebody whose opinion I really respect, but don’t always agree with if he had a favorite candidate yet... He replied with, “two million people in the streets is the candidate I would like to see” …starting to sound better and better.
Back to the bum candidates… How much different would candidate A, B, or C react to a 9/11 situation presented to them? Would they get on the phone faster than Bush and manually scramble fighters to specific quadrants?
What if a dirty bomb goes off in the U.S. and evidence traces it as a Russian product sold on the black-market to a known terrorist cell in Iran or wherever. Would A, B, or C react predictably the same?
Sorry about the downer but I’m thinking whoever is elected will just be reacting to situations presented to them by the real string pullers. However it would be nice to get somebody in there strong enough to really rise above, and live through it.
And yeah, I’ll have to take a look at instant runoff voting also…
I'm not really sure what you're asking. For me, in the last few elections, Bush was Bum "A" or "B". I don't know that I've seen anyone run for office that hasn't been a BUM. Maybe some of the 3rd party people have been more respectable than the mainstream 2 party choices-- but no one ever considers them.
It's not always easy to find what you like in a politician... I think it's much easier to find what you DON'T like... Kind of a "Bottom line, I don't trust this guy--- or that guy either!" Now, I'm not trying to run through the 80 million people in this country that are probably eligible to run for president one by one. I think we could meet better elected officials half-way...
I think if we had a max. of 2-3 presidential elections (should the first election or 2 be thrown out via "None of the Above"), you would still only have people who are serious about running for office trying to win.
Like them or not, some of the biggest jerks are still more qualified for the job than most people. With each election that "None of the Above" wins, I would think you'd eliminate the sleaziest people, with the actual greatest winning potential in the current system. I think that if you search a few levels below them (in terms of political success) are much more genuine politicians that do care (to some extent).
Right now, I believe we are set up to fail.
So, here's how I'd do it.
A max of 3 elections:
-First election, January 2008.
Should "None of the Above" be chosen as majority (majority to be defined later), the next election would be in June of 2008. Only 6 months for someone to campaign. 6 months to convince the country on far less of a campaign budget, and therefore, far less unwanted $ influence.
-Same goes for second election (if necessary) which I said, takes place in June. Same rules apply. If someone wins, great. This candidate is probably more on point with the people than ever before. Else, we take it to November.
-Third Election... "None of the Above" no longer exists. By this point, There should be a decent field of candidates, if someone hasn't already been elected in the first 2 elections.
-All elections are based on POPULAR VOTE. None of this electoral college shit anymore... It's as simple as percentages. If 30% of the people think that all of these people running are clowns, I think that speaks volumes.
-Each election day is a paid holiday.
Probably some more bugs I'm gonna have to work out... Just keep grillin me!
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
Seriously, what is the point of the electoral college? Does it make the vote count easier? I think it's kind of unfair also... Why does one state have to go one way? Do the people in the states not have different opinions? You could win an election with 11 of the highest populated states winning by a few thousand votes each. You still wouldn't have the majority of the country in agreement.
Anyway, under my crazy idea, I feel it's absolutely necessary to determine everything by popular vote.