Option C: None of the Above

[BrianH]

I'm curious...I know this sounds a bit extreme. But I would really really like to see something (of this form) end up becoming a reality.

I would like to see a "None of the Above" choice on the ballot for presidential elections. I wonder if anything could ever, ever, (possibly) become a reality if given a chance at capitol hill?

My reasoning behind this comes from my disgust of candidates. It seems that during the last few presidential races, we've been voting for the "lesser of two evils" and it blows my mind that out of 300 million Americans, we can't come up with better candidates than this. Hypothetically, if a majority of Americans were to actually vote: "None of the Above" then that would absolutely prove that American's don't like their choices, and would force candidates to be honest, run clean campaigns, and actually appeal to the American people.

I know this sounds crazy and feel free to call me so, however, I really feel like two choices along with our corrupt political election process is damaging the U.S. in the long-run.

 

[Charles_Main]

You can vote for none of the above easy enough simply by not voting. In fact None of he above gets the most votes in every election since most Americans just don't vote. Personally I think it is stupid. At the very least go right somebody in

 

[Ravi]

Um, if the majority voted for none of the above, would that mean the current pres would stay in office?

 

[jreeves]

Um, if the majority voted for none of the above, would that mean the current pres would stay in office?

Actually Richard Pryor would become president....LOL

Ever watched Brewster's Millions?

 

[BrianH]

You can vote for none of the above easy enough simply by not voting. In fact None of he above gets the most votes in every election since most Americans just don't vote. Personally I think it is stupid. At the very least go right somebody in

Well, what I mean, is that people really don't get "a voice" if they don't vote. If you don't like either of the candidates and don't vote, then it doesn't matter, they just count the votes that were cast, so really, you not voting just means you've spent opportunity to say who you'd like to run the country. With an extra choice of "none of the above" more Americans, who don't like the candidates, could go to the poll and still have a say....and if a majority votes for "none of the above" then that really means they don't want either of the candidates, and we'll be forced to come up with two better ones. If one candidate gets a majority of the votes even with the "none of the above" option, then the candidate would overwhelmingly win...IMO

 

[Charles_Main]

Well, what I mean, is that people really don't get "a voice" if they don't vote. If you don't like either of the candidates and don't vote, then it doesn't matter, they just count the votes that were cast, so really, you not voting just means you've spent opportunity to say who you'd like to run the country. With an extra choice of "none of the above" more Americans, who don't like the candidates, could go to the poll and still have a say....and if a majority votes for "none of the above" then that really means they don't want either of the candidates, and we'll be forced to come up with two better ones. If one candidate gets a majority of the votes even with the "none of the above" option, then the candidate would overwhelmingly win...IMO

I think it is Canada that has it so you can vote, and then check and option to cancel your vote. Not sure what that proves but hey, it is Canada after all

As far as voting None of the above and then choosing 2 new candidates, isn't that kinda what the primaries are for?

 

[BrianH]

Um, if the majority voted for none of the above, would that mean the current pres would stay in office?

Well, I don't have the kinks worked out yet, LOL, but you could do a number of things...you could have someone specifically elected during the primary season to take the position temporarily in the event that no candidate was selected, there are probably a number of different things that could be done, I just haven''t thought of it yet.

I'm just curious what you guys thing of the option, do you think it could work or be a good thing? Or do you think it's not necessary and spells disaster? Could this, with the correct application, work?

 

[Ravi]

Actually Richard Pryor would become president....LOL

Ever watched Brewster's Millions?

No, I should if he's in it. The guy cracks me up.

 

[BrianH]

I think it is Canada that has it so you can vote, and then check and option to cancel your vote. Not sure what that proves but hey, it is Canada after all

As far as voting None of the above and then choosing 2 new candidates, isn't that kinda what the primaries are for?

Yeah, but there's still only a few candidates that end up on the ballot...I know the system is supposed to be fair, however, the electoral college, super-delegate system, and the differences in state-division of delegates, really hinders a fair election and makes it more difficult for people to actually have a say in things.

 

[Ravi]

Well, I don't have the kinks worked out yet, LOL, but you could do a number of things...you could have someone specifically elected during the primary season to take the position temporarily in the event that no candidate was selected, there are probably a number of different things that could be done, I just haven''t thought of it yet.

I'm just curious what you guys thing of the option, do you think it could work or be a good thing? Or do you think it's not necessary and spells disaster? Could this, with the correct application, work?

Personally, I think a "real" president would be better than a substitute. But anything that keeps Bush in office for an extra second would totally make me cry.

 

[Charles_Main]

No, I should if he's in it. The guy cracks me up.

that would be great he could go to the UN to make a speech and light his hair on fire free basing. That would be a site to see

 

[BrianH]

Personally, I think a "real" president would be better than a substitute. But anything that keeps Bush in office for an extra second would totally make me cry.

Oh I know, but wouldn't a better election system pay off in the long run? And you're only saying this because Bush is in office now. In the event that we better the election system, we shouldn't (in theory) have such a bad president in office...The president elected obviously would have beat the "none of the above" option as well as the other candidate and most people wouldn't mind having him in office for a few more months until a new president was elected.

 

[jreeves]

No, I should if he's in it. The guy cracks me up.

It's old but funny....He stated vote for none of the above...

 

[BrianH]

Let me us this as an example Ballot:

I voted for Bush during the actual election, but let me use it as an example:

A. George Bush

B. John Kerry

C. None of the Above

 

[Gunny]

You can vote for none of the above easy enough simply by not voting. In fact None of he above gets the most votes in every election since most Americans just don't vote. Personally I think it is stupid. At the very least go right somebody in

Not voting is not the same as voting for "none of the above."

And I can see his point. If enough people vote "none of the above" then someobody notices and we know. If people just don't vote, they just don't vote, the usual tired reasons given.

 

[BrianH]

Not voting is not the same as voting for "none of the above."

And I can see his point. If enough people vote "none of the above" then someobody notices and we know. If people just don't vote, they just don't vote, the usual tired reasons given.

Exactly Gunny, I came to this conclusion when someone told me that if I don't vote, I can't complain...but then I though, well what if my form of complaint is not voting for either candidate? Then I realized that if I don't vote, I really don't get a voice, no matter how I rationalize my "not voting." I think it really really says something if more people vote for neither of the candidates...it reallys shows that we've got the wrong people in line to run the country. This may not be something that would have to be done in the final election, but maybe are early as the primaries. Those people too lazy to vote won't do it anyway, but it gives a voice to all of those Americans who want a choice, but don't like the choices.

 

[Charles_Main]

Exactly Gunny, I came to this conclusion when someone told me that if I don't vote, I can't complain...but then I though, well what if my form of complaint is not voting for either candidate? Then I realized that if I don't vote, I really don't get a voice, no matter how I rationalize my "not voting." I think it really really says something if more people vote for neither of the candidates...it reallys shows that we've got the wrong people in line to run the country. This may not be something that would have to be done in the final election, but maybe are early as the primaries. Those people too lazy to vote won't do it anyway, but it gives a voice to all of those Americans who want a choice, but don't like the choices.

We already have an option for that. You can write in someone. Just write in "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

 

[Your Overlord]

the Libertarian party allready does this"none of the above" appears on the Libertarian ballot
anyway I agree with this Idea
it says I participate
maybe I voted in some other race
we have a lousey District Attourney in my town
every year she runs un opposed
I often write in something rather than vote for her
I showed up and I dont approve
yeah more people dont vote at all than do vote
and oddly enough more people seem to be interested in American Idol
priorties a bit skewed
maybe you should be required to take a basic history class or something to receive a Voters licence.

 

[Jeepers]

We already have an option for that. You can write in someone. Just write in "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

I think that not voting in this case will send a stronger message. Writing in none of the above might make you feel better but... on the rosters it still shows that you voted. YOur party reps will think you voted republican.
I have a record of the last six years showing everyone that either voted or didnt vote in my precinct. This is a number that is quantifyable. When the party muckitys run the numbers they can tell what the grassroots attitudes are about their party (to an extent, since the choice is not recorded, just whether or not you voted). If you voted for none of the above your party will still assume you were a happy little constituant goin out there to pull the trigger for your boys since the record will show that you turned up.... If you wanted to kick the party in the ass it would be better not to show up at all...

Its my job over the next month to go door knocking to find out why I only had 20% show up to vote in an interim primary...

 

[midcan5]

I want to do a thread on this topic, but this, more than anything else, will be the reason our republic dies.

Patrick Henry College, a fundamentalist school, filled 7% of Bush's government internships. Now imagine for a minute the type of administrator you will have from home schooled, waiting for rapture officials? We will not need external theocratic threats, we will have allowed enough internal threats to the principles of our liberal democracy to undermine it.

So does it matter that roe v wade is overturned? That the environment doesn't matter as rapture is close? That welfare should be done by churches? That workers rights are secondary? Since Reagan our society shows the working of a fanaticism that is helping America become a nation that preaches democracy but does not live up to it.

The zealots and fanatics will always vote, they elected the failure we have now.


Talk To Action | Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith

Talk To Action | Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith

>

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Eternal-Hostility-Struggle-Theocracy-Democracy/dp/1567510884/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216211006&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy: Frederick Clarkson: Books[/ame]

Religious Fundamentalism