Why can't we choose 'None of the above.' in an election cycle and force a re-election if there is no majority? Maybe then real candidates would start emerging that spoke to what people actually wanted?

My issue is that all of these people are pretty much the same and there is no real choice between them. Either way we choose we're stuck with the same old ideas. I wish we could effect a vote of no confidence. :/

1/14/2008 10:43:23 AM

THEN BILL KLINTON WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ELEKTED

1/14/2008 10:45:06 AM

Yea, how about not trying to derail this thread completely?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

This is a serious topic which is enacted in various countries.

[Edited on January 14, 2008 at 10:47 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2008 10:45:56 AM

I fully support "none of the above" voting, or voter consent ballots


Binding NOTA Legislation Introduced in Massachusetts:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/185/ht00pdf/ht00706.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/185/st00pdf/st00456.pdf

Quote :

"Statement of Principle: All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; therefore, the legitimate consent of voters requires they be able to withhold their consent in an election to office."

Quote :

"Why are Voter Consent Ballot Options, such as a permanent, binding "None of the Above" on the ballot, a good idea? - All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; "None of the Above" gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a "No" vote on a ballot question. - Would end the "must hire" elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar "lesser evil." - A candidate must obtain voter consent to be elected, even if running unopposed. - Voters would decide the fate of the political parties' choices, instead of the parties deciding the voters' choices. - It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy. - Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote. - Provides an effective alternative to the increasing voter practice of writing-in frivolous names, the so-called “Mickey Mouse” option. - The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote. - Establishes flexible, voter controlled term limits of one term for every office, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended. - Campaign contributors who give to all candidates to insure "access" would no longer be sure they backed the winner; in general, buying elections should become a more uncertain enterprise. - Improves checks and balances between voters and political parties, especially needed in jurisdictions with one dominant political party or nearly identical alternatives. - Political parties would nominate candidates knowing those candidates must be a better choice for voters than "None of the Above." - Follow-up by-elections are far less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office. - Office holders, knowing they face "None of the Above" in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate. - When pre-election polls include "None of the Above", the feedback from voters should help guide candidates and parties. - Even when "None of the Above" does not win or is a non-binding NOTA, the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner's mandate. - Provides a permanent option for voters to withhold consent that is independent of expensive and infrequent candidate based "reform" movements. - Should make public service more attractive by improving the quality of those elected to office. - Opportunities for election fraud should be reduced because fewer blank votes for an office would be cast. - Applies to all candidates and parties equally. - It is a relatively simple, fair, sensible, accomplishable and permanent improvement to our current system, hopefully making for a more democratic and ultimately stronger America."

1/14/2008 11:08:11 AM

If you could vote "none of the above" then we would never elect another president.

1/14/2008 11:13:30 AM

^
I see what you mean

but that threat would cause the situation to fix itself -- iow, that's the point

Quote :

"- Political parties would nominate candidates knowing those candidates must be a better choice for voters than "None of the Above." - It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy. - Office holders, knowing they face "None of the Above" in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate."

and besides,

Quote :

"- Even when "None of the Above" does not win or is a non-binding NOTA, the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner's mandate."

1/14/2008 11:21:12 AM

Didn't NOTA cause runoffs several times in Russian politics?

1/14/2008 11:23:24 AM

"None of the Above" is on the ballot in Nevada. It's the only state that has it currently.

1/14/2008 11:43:17 AM

I get where you're going with the NOTA concept, but I think in and of itself it would not generate the kinds of changes you are hoping for. Rather, I think you would need to see fundamental voting reform - like, for instance, IRV, approval voting, or so forth, to see the actual fundamental differences in campaigns that you're seeking.

Right now, we have what is effectively a binary first-past-the-post system - at least in the general election. NOTA seems like it would be primarily effective in a more multi-party system.

1/14/2008 1:04:29 PM

couldn't this be a tactic for a sitting president to stay in power long past the mandated two terms?

like "a vote for none of the above is a vote for an indefinite number of years of the status quo!"

1/14/2008 1:36:51 PM

no, there'd have to be a backup system in place of some sort to prevent that. simply cutting off the executive branch for a month or two might do well actually. it'd prevent the passage of bills (unless they could muster enough to override veto's anyhow). the only real problem is military power, but i'm sure someone has come up with some sort of solution for that.

1/14/2008 1:41:01 PM

Quote :

"Why can't we choose 'None of the above.' in an election cycle and force a re-election if there is no majority? Maybe then real candidates would start emerging that spoke to what people actually wanted?"

I don't think that this will make any changes in our two party system. The two parties are already doing as much as they can to put up candidates that people want to vote for. If neither party gets majority, then should the Democrats and the Republicans to do, go through another one year Presidential nomination cycle to see who else we can come up with? Will it make any difference?

Does this mean that the existing President would stay in power until we go through the process again? As tempting as it may be to just leave the White House vacant for a couple of months, from a practical standpoint, it's going to create more harm than good (government won't disappear if you lost the President, you'd simply have bureaucrats running amok).

I guess I just wonder what difference it would make, that's all.

1/14/2008 2:20:59 PM

I think it would be a lot more viable if we could also hold candidates responsible for campaign promises.

1/14/2008 2:24:34 PM

We can right now - we just don't. No one's stopping you from voting these clowns out, but there's enough of a herd movement to keep the pork rolling in once you've got an incumbent in office that they just won't. At this point, you're fighting the tide. I am coming to realize that there is honest-to-God an overwhelming mob of people who will vote to support the status quo no matter what the status quo is. It doesn't matter how bad it is. See: Chicago.

1/14/2008 2:55:51 PM

Quote :

"My issue is that all of these people are pretty much the same and there is no real choice between them. Either way we choose we're stuck with the same old ideas"

[OLD]

1/14/2008 3:31:06 PM