How about THIS for 3rd choice on your ballots?

[Cecilie1200]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

Sounds kind of . . . like something that would never happen. What happens in the meantime, Obama remains POTUS? Yikes.

Well, your plan would let the morons in the House of Representatives decide, so . . .

That's a possibility in THIS election. If 3rd parties get even 29 electoral votes, then ClinTrump has to win by 30 or it goes to the House. Want me list 29 possible electoral votes for Johnson/Weld?

And your comment about leaving Obama in office while it's sorted is not possible. It's a date certain for resolving the transition. The General just has to be moved up. Primaries shouldn't take 3 months anyway..

"Shouldn't"? Why "shouldn't" they? Because you think political candidates need LESS vetting? Because choosing a President isn't deserving of our time and attention, and should be done on the fly?

You must be one of those people who think that the current level of media coverage and the reality shows now known as "debates" are informative. You can do more in 1 hour than the media can do FOR you in months.

Find some candidates that ACTUALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS. Will take a lot less time..

Blah blah yada yada "You don't agree with me, so you OBVIOUSLY think THIS!"

You must be one of those people who think the media still has a stranglehold on the supply of information in this country.

Welcome to the Internet Age.

Meanwhile, absolutely nothing you've said has anything to do with my criticism of your asinine "Let's make elections longer, more complicated, and less informed" suggestion. Big surprise. Primaries and general elections take as long as they do to give people - whoever they are - time to research the candidates, and also gives the voters time to see them and get to know them through a variety of settings and against the backdrop of a variety of current events, and also to observe how they handle themselves under prolonged stress and pressure. The last thing we need is to shorten the procedure simply because you're bored and want instant gratification of some sort.

 

[Cecilie1200]

o_0 What exactly do you want it to "measure"? A write-in vote is quite literally saying that you do not want any of the above. Even if you and I both write in two different people, the fact of the matter is that we both voted "none of the above." It's not difficult.

NOTA IS a write-in essentially. But with actual write-ins -- they are all tallied individually. With NOTA they are all tallied TOGETHER. Get the diff? You might technically "measure" dissent to the choices with a lot of write-in names -- but it would not ADD UP to singularly clear vote of "no thanks"..

And people need to stop THANKING the parties for offering such increasingly arrogant and divisive candidates.

Dunno about Swim, but I DON'T get any meaningful difference there at all.

What possible difference does it make if you have "some over here, some over there, more in the corner" or "lots right here", if they all amount to the exact same number of votes producing no winner?

I'd say no matter how the voters go about saying, "Fuck you" to the major parties, the parties still get the point. (This is not to say that they're paying any attention, but they do still get it.)

You cannot legally GROUP write-ins for different names. That's illegal. It goes against voter intent. If I vote for Obiwan Kenobi --- that has to be interpreted literally. A judge would look at your interpretation of "grouping" them all as NOTA and tell you --- "Those people did NOT vote for NOTA -- They voted for Obiwan Kenobi, Sponge Bob, Lady GaGa and Homer Simpson. "


Besides -- NOTA concept is built on having a specific action occur after the election if NOTA wins. And that part requires legislation anyways.

And grouping is terribly important to the job of "Screw the major candidates" because why?

Because (for example) -- when you have only 2 choices (not true if you consider the LParty/Green tickets) --- and BOTH those choices are running EPIC high Negatives -- the parties have screwed up. Don't CARE if trump got 40% of the small category of Rep Primary voters. The same for Clinton. THey are both very risky and dangerous candidates.

The partisans think they OWN the process. But the "independents" and the politically frustrated and 3rd party supporters as a group are BIGGER than either of them. And those folks didn't choose the slates (except for the 3rd party who actually DID choose their slates) ..

So at the General -- ALL those other folks get to speak. AND the party animals that HATE the choices their parties made. ---- And if THEY hate ALL the choices -- they should be heard. Those corporations you call political parties are NOT the voice of the voters.

So NOTA is a way to flush risky, unloved, and arrogant slates and PUNISH the parties for choosing like that.

Parties tend to be screwed up anyway. This is not news. However, in the case of Donald Trump, I think we can fairly say that the voters ALSO screwed up when they wrested power from the hands of the party.

If the "independents", politically frustrated, and 3rd party supporters were any kind of "group", we wouldn't have Trump as a candidate at all. They already DID get to speak, and they did so as a whole bunch of small, divided, hostile factions, and this is what we got. They spoke up - and continue to do so - they told the world at large how displeased they were with the choices - and continue to do so - and guess what? It got them WORSE choices, not better. Know why? Because in the end, there still has to be a winner, and the factions are just as arrogant, selfish, single-minded, and nasty as the so-called "partisans".

There is nothing about officially incorporating a national temper tantrum on the ballot as yet another layer of complication and extension of the process that is going to fix that. The only thing that WILL is for the voters in general to grow the fuck up and start making serious, mature, informed decisions.

Good luck with that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

No, there are 30 something people to vote for and people can't see past 2 of them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sounds kind of . . . like something that would never happen. What happens in the meantime, Obama remains POTUS? Yikes.

Well, your plan would let the morons in the House of Representatives decide, so . . .

That's a possibility in THIS election. If 3rd parties get even 29 electoral votes, then ClinTrump has to win by 30 or it goes to the House. Want me list 29 possible electoral votes for Johnson/Weld?

And your comment about leaving Obama in office while it's sorted is not possible. It's a date certain for resolving the transition. The General just has to be moved up. Primaries shouldn't take 3 months anyway..

"Shouldn't"? Why "shouldn't" they? Because you think political candidates need LESS vetting? Because choosing a President isn't deserving of our time and attention, and should be done on the fly?

You must be one of those people who think that the current level of media coverage and the reality shows now known as "debates" are informative. You can do more in 1 hour than the media can do FOR you in months.

Find some candidates that ACTUALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS. Will take a lot less time..

Blah blah yada yada "You don't agree with me, so you OBVIOUSLY think THIS!"

You must be one of those people who think the media still has a stranglehold on the supply of information in this country.

Welcome to the Internet Age.

Meanwhile, absolutely nothing you've said has anything to do with my criticism of your asinine "Let's make elections longer, more complicated, and less informed" suggestion. Big surprise. Primaries and general elections take as long as they do to give people - whoever they are - time to research the candidates, and also gives the voters time to see them and get to know them through a variety of settings and against the backdrop of a variety of current events, and also to observe how they handle themselves under prolonged stress and pressure. The last thing we need is to shorten the procedure simply because you're bored and want instant gratification of some sort.

My point stands. When MOST the airtime or I-net bandwidth is devoted to gaffs, conspiracy theories, scandals childish pranks and MORE evidence that you have flawed candidates --- you need BETTER candidates. That can make their case in 30 or 45 days to the public.

And you missed the entire point. These back benchers would be VETTED and introduced during the NORMAL PRIMARIES. It's usually NOT required to bring up someone from the Minor Leagues.

 

[flacaltenn]

NOTA IS a write-in essentially. But with actual write-ins -- they are all tallied individually. With NOTA they are all tallied TOGETHER. Get the diff? You might technically "measure" dissent to the choices with a lot of write-in names -- but it would not ADD UP to singularly clear vote of "no thanks"..

And people need to stop THANKING the parties for offering such increasingly arrogant and divisive candidates.

Dunno about Swim, but I DON'T get any meaningful difference there at all.

What possible difference does it make if you have "some over here, some over there, more in the corner" or "lots right here", if they all amount to the exact same number of votes producing no winner?

I'd say no matter how the voters go about saying, "Fuck you" to the major parties, the parties still get the point. (This is not to say that they're paying any attention, but they do still get it.)

You cannot legally GROUP write-ins for different names. That's illegal. It goes against voter intent. If I vote for Obiwan Kenobi --- that has to be interpreted literally. A judge would look at your interpretation of "grouping" them all as NOTA and tell you --- "Those people did NOT vote for NOTA -- They voted for Obiwan Kenobi, Sponge Bob, Lady GaGa and Homer Simpson. "


Besides -- NOTA concept is built on having a specific action occur after the election if NOTA wins. And that part requires legislation anyways.

And grouping is terribly important to the job of "Screw the major candidates" because why?

Because (for example) -- when you have only 2 choices (not true if you consider the LParty/Green tickets) --- and BOTH those choices are running EPIC high Negatives -- the parties have screwed up. Don't CARE if trump got 40% of the small category of Rep Primary voters. The same for Clinton. THey are both very risky and dangerous candidates.

The partisans think they OWN the process. But the "independents" and the politically frustrated and 3rd party supporters as a group are BIGGER than either of them. And those folks didn't choose the slates (except for the 3rd party who actually DID choose their slates) ..

So at the General -- ALL those other folks get to speak. AND the party animals that HATE the choices their parties made. ---- And if THEY hate ALL the choices -- they should be heard. Those corporations you call political parties are NOT the voice of the voters.

So NOTA is a way to flush risky, unloved, and arrogant slates and PUNISH the parties for choosing like that.

Parties tend to be screwed up anyway. This is not news. However, in the case of Donald Trump, I think we can fairly say that the voters ALSO screwed up when they wrested power from the hands of the party.

If the "independents", politically frustrated, and 3rd party supporters were any kind of "group", we wouldn't have Trump as a candidate at all. They already DID get to speak, and they did so as a whole bunch of small, divided, hostile factions, and this is what we got. They spoke up - and continue to do so - they told the world at large how displeased they were with the choices - and continue to do so - and guess what? It got them WORSE choices, not better. Know why? Because in the end, there still has to be a winner, and the factions are just as arrogant, selfish, single-minded, and nasty as the so-called "partisans".

There is nothing about officially incorporating a national temper tantrum on the ballot as yet another layer of complication and extension of the process that is going to fix that. The only thing that WILL is for the voters in general to grow the fuck up and start making serious, mature, informed decisions.

Good luck with that.

It's not a national temper tantrum. It's a rejection of the party process. And for you to single out Trump as the ONLY flawed candidate on the ballot --- maybe explains your outright objection of giving OTHER folks a chance to REJECT BOTH of the choices. After all the number of unaffiliated, politically homeless voters or citizens who NEVER see a clearly desirable choice on the ballot is larger than EITHER camp of the "party faithful"..

 

[flacaltenn]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

No, there are 30 something people to vote for and people can't see past 2 of them.

There are only 3 parties that will be on ALL 50 state ballots. There's a 4th that will be on the majority of state ballots. So I don't see the significance of these "30 something people" factoid that you pulled. If there ARE 30 -- it's like the perennial "dem labor" candidate that runs only in NY State.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

No, there are 30 something people to vote for and people can't see past 2 of them.

There are only 3 parties that will be on ALL 50 state ballots. There's a 4th that will be on the majority of state ballots. So I don't see the significance of these "30 something people" factoid that you pulled. If there ARE 30 -- it's like the perennial "dem labor" candidate that runs only in NY State.

I didn't say there were 30 in all 50 states. But there were about 32 on ballots across the country. But even with the 3rd party, hardly anyone voted for them.

Gary Johnson got 1.2 million votes. That's 0.99% of the votes. Almost nothing, and he WAS running in all 50 states. The Greens got 0.36%.

Compare this to Romney getting 47.2% and Obama 51.06%.

98.26% of the votes went to the main two parties. Only about 2 million people voted for someone other than the main two. And yet claim there's no one else to vote for.

I mean, come on. Surely on your ballot there's going to be 5 or more different people you can vote for. You can vote for a party that isn't the main ones.

Who doesn't have more than 3 parties to vote for?

 

[owebo]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

No, there are 30 something people to vote for and people can't see past 2 of them.

Hitlery appreciates your support....

 

[whitehall]

The slick sleazy Hussein administration just planted the seed for a 3rd party when amazingly the DEA got to voice their opinion about the marijuana law. Why the hell would the Hussein administration allow a federal law enforcement agency to determine whether or not the federal government would enforce a law pertaining to narcotics? When you consider that the libertarian party is the only viable 3rd party and the libertarians have been hijacked by the pot heads the logical conclusion is that the administration is paving the way for a 3rd party vote

 

[flacaltenn]

The slick sleazy Hussein administration just planted the seed for a 3rd party when amazingly the DEA got to voice their opinion about the marijuana law. Why the hell would the Hussein administration allow a federal law enforcement agency to determine whether or not the federal government would enforce a law pertaining to narcotics? When you consider that the libertarian party is the only viable 3rd party and the libertarians have been hijacked by the pot heads the logical conclusion is that the administration is paving the way for a 3rd party vote

We've not been "hijacked by potheads". That's an OLD issue for us. It's in our past and now an American issue. Just like we USED to be called Traitor Doves for being against a MEast policy that bombs 4 Arab countries a year and creates prime habitat for terrorists. We were 30 years AHEAD of "popular opinion" on that one. Same with gay inclusion when in the freaking 70s, we ran an openly gay man as our FIRST candidate for Prez. We never bragged about it. But we were also called "faggot lovers" for doing so.

We've been 30 years AHEAD of public consensus. And now those issues are MAINSTREAM. They are not and have never been the ONLY issues we judged and proposed solutions for using Libertarian principles. We have not changed. America HAS changed.

But yes --- insisting on KEEPING the classification is very regressive and shows little pro active interest in GETTING AHEAD on the science and research that NEEDS to be done to keep up with the "decriminalization" effort we help start way back when. Government will still be getting their pants on -- when the states are already FAR AHEAD of decrees out of Wash. DC. THat's just the ineptitude and incompetence of the Minions of Morons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dunno about Swim, but I DON'T get any meaningful difference there at all.

What possible difference does it make if you have "some over here, some over there, more in the corner" or "lots right here", if they all amount to the exact same number of votes producing no winner?

I'd say no matter how the voters go about saying, "Fuck you" to the major parties, the parties still get the point. (This is not to say that they're paying any attention, but they do still get it.)

You cannot legally GROUP write-ins for different names. That's illegal. It goes against voter intent. If I vote for Obiwan Kenobi --- that has to be interpreted literally. A judge would look at your interpretation of "grouping" them all as NOTA and tell you --- "Those people did NOT vote for NOTA -- They voted for Obiwan Kenobi, Sponge Bob, Lady GaGa and Homer Simpson. "


Besides -- NOTA concept is built on having a specific action occur after the election if NOTA wins. And that part requires legislation anyways.

And grouping is terribly important to the job of "Screw the major candidates" because why?

Because (for example) -- when you have only 2 choices (not true if you consider the LParty/Green tickets) --- and BOTH those choices are running EPIC high Negatives -- the parties have screwed up. Don't CARE if trump got 40% of the small category of Rep Primary voters. The same for Clinton. THey are both very risky and dangerous candidates.

The partisans think they OWN the process. But the "independents" and the politically frustrated and 3rd party supporters as a group are BIGGER than either of them. And those folks didn't choose the slates (except for the 3rd party who actually DID choose their slates) ..

So at the General -- ALL those other folks get to speak. AND the party animals that HATE the choices their parties made. ---- And if THEY hate ALL the choices -- they should be heard. Those corporations you call political parties are NOT the voice of the voters.

So NOTA is a way to flush risky, unloved, and arrogant slates and PUNISH the parties for choosing like that.

Parties tend to be screwed up anyway. This is not news. However, in the case of Donald Trump, I think we can fairly say that the voters ALSO screwed up when they wrested power from the hands of the party.

If the "independents", politically frustrated, and 3rd party supporters were any kind of "group", we wouldn't have Trump as a candidate at all. They already DID get to speak, and they did so as a whole bunch of small, divided, hostile factions, and this is what we got. They spoke up - and continue to do so - they told the world at large how displeased they were with the choices - and continue to do so - and guess what? It got them WORSE choices, not better. Know why? Because in the end, there still has to be a winner, and the factions are just as arrogant, selfish, single-minded, and nasty as the so-called "partisans".

There is nothing about officially incorporating a national temper tantrum on the ballot as yet another layer of complication and extension of the process that is going to fix that. The only thing that WILL is for the voters in general to grow the fuck up and start making serious, mature, informed decisions.

Good luck with that.

It's not a national temper tantrum. It's a rejection of the party process. And for you to single out Trump as the ONLY flawed candidate on the ballot --- maybe explains your outright objection of giving OTHER folks a chance to REJECT BOTH of the choices. After all the number of unaffiliated, politically homeless voters or citizens who NEVER see a clearly desirable choice on the ballot is larger than EITHER camp of the "party faithful"..

I have three children and two grandchildren. I know a temper tantrum when I see one being thrown, and I'm no more impressed by your attempt to justify and aggrandize it than I am when they do it.

Furthermore, the fact that you think I'm "singling out Trump as the ONLY flawed candidate" just goes to prove my point about how blinkered and cultishly indoctrinated Trumpettes are into his little fantasy narrative. My biggest problem with Trump is that Hillary Clinton sucks so monumentally, and Trump as a candidate is basically handing her the election with a big shiny bow on it, just like the GOP always manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[flacaltenn]

You cannot legally GROUP write-ins for different names. That's illegal. It goes against voter intent. If I vote for Obiwan Kenobi --- that has to be interpreted literally. A judge would look at your interpretation of "grouping" them all as NOTA and tell you --- "Those people did NOT vote for NOTA -- They voted for Obiwan Kenobi, Sponge Bob, Lady GaGa and Homer Simpson. "


Besides -- NOTA concept is built on having a specific action occur after the election if NOTA wins. And that part requires legislation anyways.

And grouping is terribly important to the job of "Screw the major candidates" because why?

Because (for example) -- when you have only 2 choices (not true if you consider the LParty/Green tickets) --- and BOTH those choices are running EPIC high Negatives -- the parties have screwed up. Don't CARE if trump got 40% of the small category of Rep Primary voters. The same for Clinton. THey are both very risky and dangerous candidates.

The partisans think they OWN the process. But the "independents" and the politically frustrated and 3rd party supporters as a group are BIGGER than either of them. And those folks didn't choose the slates (except for the 3rd party who actually DID choose their slates) ..

So at the General -- ALL those other folks get to speak. AND the party animals that HATE the choices their parties made. ---- And if THEY hate ALL the choices -- they should be heard. Those corporations you call political parties are NOT the voice of the voters.

So NOTA is a way to flush risky, unloved, and arrogant slates and PUNISH the parties for choosing like that.

Parties tend to be screwed up anyway. This is not news. However, in the case of Donald Trump, I think we can fairly say that the voters ALSO screwed up when they wrested power from the hands of the party.

If the "independents", politically frustrated, and 3rd party supporters were any kind of "group", we wouldn't have Trump as a candidate at all. They already DID get to speak, and they did so as a whole bunch of small, divided, hostile factions, and this is what we got. They spoke up - and continue to do so - they told the world at large how displeased they were with the choices - and continue to do so - and guess what? It got them WORSE choices, not better. Know why? Because in the end, there still has to be a winner, and the factions are just as arrogant, selfish, single-minded, and nasty as the so-called "partisans".

There is nothing about officially incorporating a national temper tantrum on the ballot as yet another layer of complication and extension of the process that is going to fix that. The only thing that WILL is for the voters in general to grow the fuck up and start making serious, mature, informed decisions.

Good luck with that.

It's not a national temper tantrum. It's a rejection of the party process. And for you to single out Trump as the ONLY flawed candidate on the ballot --- maybe explains your outright objection of giving OTHER folks a chance to REJECT BOTH of the choices. After all the number of unaffiliated, politically homeless voters or citizens who NEVER see a clearly desirable choice on the ballot is larger than EITHER camp of the "party faithful"..

I have three children and two grandchildren. I know a temper tantrum when I see one being thrown, and I'm no more impressed by your attempt to justify and aggrandize it than I am when they do it.

Furthermore, the fact that you think I'm "singling out Trump as the ONLY flawed candidate" just goes to prove my point about how blinkered and cultishly indoctrinated Trumpettes are into his little fantasy narrative. My biggest problem with Trump is that Hillary Clinton sucks so monumentally, and Trump as a candidate is basically handing her the election with a big shiny bow on it, just like the GOP always manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

So why would you reward EITHER of them with your precious vote?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And grouping is terribly important to the job of "Screw the major candidates" because why?

Because (for example) -- when you have only 2 choices (not true if you consider the LParty/Green tickets) --- and BOTH those choices are running EPIC high Negatives -- the parties have screwed up. Don't CARE if trump got 40% of the small category of Rep Primary voters. The same for Clinton. THey are both very risky and dangerous candidates.

The partisans think they OWN the process. But the "independents" and the politically frustrated and 3rd party supporters as a group are BIGGER than either of them. And those folks didn't choose the slates (except for the 3rd party who actually DID choose their slates) ..

So at the General -- ALL those other folks get to speak. AND the party animals that HATE the choices their parties made. ---- And if THEY hate ALL the choices -- they should be heard. Those corporations you call political parties are NOT the voice of the voters.

So NOTA is a way to flush risky, unloved, and arrogant slates and PUNISH the parties for choosing like that.

Parties tend to be screwed up anyway. This is not news. However, in the case of Donald Trump, I think we can fairly say that the voters ALSO screwed up when they wrested power from the hands of the party.

If the "independents", politically frustrated, and 3rd party supporters were any kind of "group", we wouldn't have Trump as a candidate at all. They already DID get to speak, and they did so as a whole bunch of small, divided, hostile factions, and this is what we got. They spoke up - and continue to do so - they told the world at large how displeased they were with the choices - and continue to do so - and guess what? It got them WORSE choices, not better. Know why? Because in the end, there still has to be a winner, and the factions are just as arrogant, selfish, single-minded, and nasty as the so-called "partisans".

There is nothing about officially incorporating a national temper tantrum on the ballot as yet another layer of complication and extension of the process that is going to fix that. The only thing that WILL is for the voters in general to grow the fuck up and start making serious, mature, informed decisions.

Good luck with that.

It's not a national temper tantrum. It's a rejection of the party process. And for you to single out Trump as the ONLY flawed candidate on the ballot --- maybe explains your outright objection of giving OTHER folks a chance to REJECT BOTH of the choices. After all the number of unaffiliated, politically homeless voters or citizens who NEVER see a clearly desirable choice on the ballot is larger than EITHER camp of the "party faithful"..

I have three children and two grandchildren. I know a temper tantrum when I see one being thrown, and I'm no more impressed by your attempt to justify and aggrandize it than I am when they do it.

Furthermore, the fact that you think I'm "singling out Trump as the ONLY flawed candidate" just goes to prove my point about how blinkered and cultishly indoctrinated Trumpettes are into his little fantasy narrative. My biggest problem with Trump is that Hillary Clinton sucks so monumentally, and Trump as a candidate is basically handing her the election with a big shiny bow on it, just like the GOP always manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

So why would you reward EITHER of them with your precious vote?

Who said I was going to?

 

[flacaltenn]

Because (for example) -- when you have only 2 choices (not true if you consider the LParty/Green tickets) --- and BOTH those choices are running EPIC high Negatives -- the parties have screwed up. Don't CARE if trump got 40% of the small category of Rep Primary voters. The same for Clinton. THey are both very risky and dangerous candidates.

The partisans think they OWN the process. But the "independents" and the politically frustrated and 3rd party supporters as a group are BIGGER than either of them. And those folks didn't choose the slates (except for the 3rd party who actually DID choose their slates) ..

So at the General -- ALL those other folks get to speak. AND the party animals that HATE the choices their parties made. ---- And if THEY hate ALL the choices -- they should be heard. Those corporations you call political parties are NOT the voice of the voters.

So NOTA is a way to flush risky, unloved, and arrogant slates and PUNISH the parties for choosing like that.

Parties tend to be screwed up anyway. This is not news. However, in the case of Donald Trump, I think we can fairly say that the voters ALSO screwed up when they wrested power from the hands of the party.

If the "independents", politically frustrated, and 3rd party supporters were any kind of "group", we wouldn't have Trump as a candidate at all. They already DID get to speak, and they did so as a whole bunch of small, divided, hostile factions, and this is what we got. They spoke up - and continue to do so - they told the world at large how displeased they were with the choices - and continue to do so - and guess what? It got them WORSE choices, not better. Know why? Because in the end, there still has to be a winner, and the factions are just as arrogant, selfish, single-minded, and nasty as the so-called "partisans".

There is nothing about officially incorporating a national temper tantrum on the ballot as yet another layer of complication and extension of the process that is going to fix that. The only thing that WILL is for the voters in general to grow the fuck up and start making serious, mature, informed decisions.

Good luck with that.

It's not a national temper tantrum. It's a rejection of the party process. And for you to single out Trump as the ONLY flawed candidate on the ballot --- maybe explains your outright objection of giving OTHER folks a chance to REJECT BOTH of the choices. After all the number of unaffiliated, politically homeless voters or citizens who NEVER see a clearly desirable choice on the ballot is larger than EITHER camp of the "party faithful"..

I have three children and two grandchildren. I know a temper tantrum when I see one being thrown, and I'm no more impressed by your attempt to justify and aggrandize it than I am when they do it.

Furthermore, the fact that you think I'm "singling out Trump as the ONLY flawed candidate" just goes to prove my point about how blinkered and cultishly indoctrinated Trumpettes are into his little fantasy narrative. My biggest problem with Trump is that Hillary Clinton sucks so monumentally, and Trump as a candidate is basically handing her the election with a big shiny bow on it, just like the GOP always manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

So why would you reward EITHER of them with your precious vote?

Who said I was going to?

So your choice is take yourself OUT of the process of representative govt. Rather than have a ballot option to REJECT the choices on the ballot?

Yeah -- they will HEAR your silence and wise up.. Brilliant plan..