Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I also believe in a no confidence option for each race.
If it gets more votes than either candidate they have to do it again with someone else.
I also believe in a no confidence option for each race.
If it gets more votes than either candidate they have to do it again with someone else.
And how many times should this be allowed to go on? Do they just keep going with different candidates until one of them finally beats "None of the above?" Or do they just keep that seat vacant after so many tries. Elections cost money, and I'm of the opinion that it's a waste of money to have elections over and over again like that.
I also believe in a no confidence option for each race.
If it gets more votes than either candidate they have to do it again with someone else.
And how many times should this be allowed to go on? Do they just keep going with different candidates until one of them finally beats "None of the above?" Or do they just keep that seat vacant after so many tries. Elections cost money, and I'm of the opinion that it's a waste of money to have elections over and over again like that.
an interim gets appointed by governor or whatever and we do it again.
an election is supposed to provide the representative that the people want not a choice of two that the mega parties want.
I also believe in a no confidence option for each race.
If it gets more votes than either candidate they have to do it again with someone else.
And how many times should this be allowed to go on? Do they just keep going with different candidates until one of them finally beats "None of the above?" Or do they just keep that seat vacant after so many tries. Elections cost money, and I'm of the opinion that it's a waste of money to have elections over and over again like that.
an interim gets appointed by governor or whatever and we do it again.
an election is supposed to provide the representative that the people want not a choice of two that the mega parties want.
actually, those were senators and that is spelled out in the constitutionAnd how many times should this be allowed to go on? Do they just keep going with different candidates until one of them finally beats "None of the above?" Or do they just keep that seat vacant after so many tries. Elections cost money, and I'm of the opinion that it's a waste of money to have elections over and over again like that.
an interim gets appointed by governor or whatever and we do it again.
an election is supposed to provide the representative that the people want not a choice of two that the mega parties want.
I don't trust governors or anyone to pick a representative for me. Look at Blago, Patterson, etc.
how long do you think it would take to have the run off?And how many times should this be allowed to go on? Do they just keep going with different candidates until one of them finally beats "None of the above?" Or do they just keep that seat vacant after so many tries. Elections cost money, and I'm of the opinion that it's a waste of money to have elections over and over again like that.
an interim gets appointed by governor or whatever and we do it again.
an election is supposed to provide the representative that the people want not a choice of two that the mega parties want.
And if no one can win Governor?
actually, those were senators and that is spelled out in the constitutionan interim gets appointed by governor or whatever and we do it again.
an election is supposed to provide the representative that the people want not a choice of two that the mega parties want.
I don't trust governors or anyone to pick a representative for me. Look at Blago, Patterson, etc.
and i dont believe any Representative is appointed by the governors
how long do you think it would take to have the run off?an interim gets appointed by governor or whatever and we do it again.
an election is supposed to provide the representative that the people want not a choice of two that the mega parties want.
And if no one can win Governor?
btw, i would also support moving the election up by a month
longer days and the likelihood of bad weather is less
honestly, even though i likely wouldnt like the people my current governor would appoint, i wish the senators would go back to being selected by the governors and approved by the legislatureactually, those were senators and that is spelled out in the constitutionI don't trust governors or anyone to pick a representative for me. Look at Blago, Patterson, etc.
and i dont believe any Representative is appointed by the governors
You're right, I mistyped.
Even if it's in the Constitution, I don't like it.
New York doesn't need two Chuck Shumers. One's good enough.
honestly, even though i likely wouldnt like the people my current governor would appoint, i wish the senators would go back to being selected by the governors and approved by the legislatureactually, those were senators and that is spelled out in the constitution
and i dont believe any Representative is appointed by the governors
You're right, I mistyped.
Even if it's in the Constitution, I don't like it.
New York doesn't need two Chuck Shumers. One's good enough.
at least then i think you would see some better things out of DC
well, you could do the "instant run-offs" where you rank the candidates by your choicehow long do you think it would take to have the run off?And if no one can win Governor?
btw, i would also support moving the election up by a month
longer days and the likelihood of bad weather is less
The issue here is if "None of the above" was an option on the ballot. I contend that "None of the above" would win a lot of elections. What if "None of the above" won the second election? And on and on? These elections are going to cost taxpayer money, and in the end, an establishment drone is going to win anyways. Not to mention, as there are more and more elections you're going to have a lower turnout. People aren't going to constantly spend their time showing up to the polls to vote.
I say one election is enough.
how long do you think it would take to have the run off?And if no one can win Governor?
btw, i would also support moving the election up by a month
longer days and the likelihood of bad weather is less
The issue here is if "None of the above" was an option on the ballot. I contend that "None of the above" would win a lot of elections. What if "None of the above" won the second election? And on and on? These elections are going to cost taxpayer money, and in the end, an establishment drone is going to win anyways. Not to mention, as there are more and more elections you're going to have a lower turnout. People aren't going to constantly spend their time showing up to the polls to vote.
I say one election is enough.
how long do you think it would take to have the run off?
btw, i would also support moving the election up by a month
longer days and the likelihood of bad weather is less
The issue here is if "None of the above" was an option on the ballot. I contend that "None of the above" would win a lot of elections. What if "None of the above" won the second election? And on and on? These elections are going to cost taxpayer money, and in the end, an establishment drone is going to win anyways. Not to mention, as there are more and more elections you're going to have a lower turnout. People aren't going to constantly spend their time showing up to the polls to vote.
I say one election is enough.
Yes, but maybe the parties will stop giving us Tweedldee and Tweedldum.
a "none of the above " option could eliminate thatThe issue here is if "None of the above" was an option on the ballot. I contend that "None of the above" would win a lot of elections. What if "None of the above" won the second election? And on and on? These elections are going to cost taxpayer money, and in the end, an establishment drone is going to win anyways. Not to mention, as there are more and more elections you're going to have a lower turnout. People aren't going to constantly spend their time showing up to the polls to vote.
I say one election is enough.
Yes, but maybe the parties will stop giving us Tweedldee and Tweedldum.
The parties only exist to stay in power. They don't care who they elect, so long as that person works for the benefit of the party. A more independent minded candidate is quickly shunned as "extreme" or "kooky," because they're not necessarily going to benefit the party. "Tweedledee" and "Tweedledum," as you call them, are more likely to play ball, so to speak. So that's exactly who the parties want.
Often on USMB, I see people on USMB either act or outright state that a vote for a third party candidate is a waste despite the fact they'd be voting for someone they don't like otherwise.
Poll coming, simple yes or no. Feel free to state why you feel that way in a post.
a "none of the above " option could eliminate thatYes, but maybe the parties will stop giving us Tweedldee and Tweedldum.
The parties only exist to stay in power. They don't care who they elect, so long as that person works for the benefit of the party. A more independent minded candidate is quickly shunned as "extreme" or "kooky," because they're not necessarily going to benefit the party. "Tweedledee" and "Tweedledum," as you call them, are more likely to play ball, so to speak. So that's exactly who the parties want.
And how many times should this be allowed to go on? Do they just keep going with different candidates until one of them finally beats "None of the above?" Or do they just keep that seat vacant after so many tries. Elections cost money, and I'm of the opinion that it's a waste of money to have elections over and over again like that.
an interim gets appointed by governor or whatever and we do it again.
an election is supposed to provide the representative that the people want not a choice of two that the mega parties want.
I don't trust governors or anyone to pick a representative for me. Look at Blago, Patterson, etc.
There was no option for "depends".
Sometimes it is a waste, sometimes it isn't. Depends on the political situation at the time.
Put it this way, I voted third party in 2004 because it was a forgone conclusion which presidential candidate my state was going to throw it's electoral votes behind. My thinking was that if enough of "us" voted third party that the winners of the elections might get shaken up a little by the message sent. So while I knew the candidate I was pulling the lever for was not going to win, there was a point to it. So I do not consider it a waste.
Now in a close election, a vote for a third party is a waste at this time in our political history. You're throwing away your vote for your "perfect" (although loser) candidate instead of going with the candidate you may have disagreements with, but has the best shot of winning. See also: Ralph Nader, Florida 2000.
It is not just about sending a message. If 3rd party candidates in the presidential race anyways, can get enough % of the vote, and it is not much. They get Federal Funding and access to debates they would not have gotten in the next election.
I'm not going to vote for a third party simply because they might get a shot at debates in the next election.
and no exit polling allowedAnother election recommendation of mine is all presidential primaries are held on the same date. And on the November final presidential election no results are released until after the last polls close in the last state.
Just an fyi I voted for Ross.
