Zone1 The Case for Negative Voting

[ReinyDays]

I like it ... I absolutely would have spent another $6,000 in postage voting `against` Biden ... in a New York second ...

 

[ozro]

We need "None of the above" as a choice on every ballot. I been saying this for years.

 

[Flopper]

We need "None of the above" as a choice on every ballot. I been saying this for years.

Not a bad idea but I'm not sure it delivers a message that would spur any action.

 

[Flopper]

Then an "against" vote is exactly like a "for" vote for the other Bozo ... negative B = positive A ... and vis-a-vis come see come saw ... the OP says I hate both candidates, and won't vote unless I can vote `against` one of these two assholes ... if you just count my `against` vote as `for` the other guy I hate ... then no dice, I ain't voting ... I only want my vote to cancel so other idiot's vote ...

Almost everyone here is well fed ... even the homeless produce garbage now ... what's wrong with the voting system again? ...

The only problem with the current voting system is it does not allow voters a choice of saying no, only yes to candidates selected by the two parties for God knows what reason. 35% to 45% of those that are eligible to vote don't vote in national elections. That's about 80 million people that don't vote in America where voting is the bedrock of our freedoms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In America, citizens are guaranteed the right to vote.

The kids on the right would disagree.

For conservatives, voting is a privilege bestowed by government, subject to the capricious whims of politicians determining who will vote subject to partisan restrictions, in no manner guaranteed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not allowing people to vote No is undemocratic.

In a sense, we’ve always had negative voting; indeed, many – perhaps most – voters don’t vote ‘for’ anyone, they vote against a given candidate they oppose and don’t want to see in office.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You vote for a candidate just way you do now with one exception. If the only reason you are voting for A is because you hate B then cast a negative vote against B and the B total vote will be reduce by your negative vote and A remains unchanged.

The end result is pretty much the same as what we have now, the voters deciding between the lesser of two evils.

 

[toobfreak]

As a voter

Certainly not as a mathematician! For if you were, you'd realize that giving a POSITIVE vote for your candidate IS THE SAME as a negative vote against his opponent. The end result is the same.

All you are really petitioning for is the ability to vote against someone while not voting FOR the other person because you like neither of the two, which would compound the complexity of elections so far beyond control in deciding the outcomes that we would never have an acceptable settled election again--- as it is, we may not ever have another anyway.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But if everyone votes negative then no one would be elected and we wouldn’t have a government.
Hey… that’s an idea!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Democracy isn't rocket science. First, rid politics of all private gifts and contributions. Permanently outlaw the obvious root of government corruption. Next, disallow running under any previously established party name. No more gerrymandering, first-past-the-post, nor Electoral College BS.

Simply allow anyone eligible to run for office on their own dime alone (up to some limit deemed fair).. and up until open primaries can be held to cut the number of candidates down to a reasonable size.. using our otherwise well established rules and procedures. Granted this may take significant time for election volunteers to manage and sort out. Then provide all remaining candidates equal public funding to campaign for final election.

The final vote should be for one's first three choices in order of preference. Say 3 points for one's first choice, 2 points for their second, 1 for their third. The winner then being the candidate receiving the most points.

We should continue striving to be the world's greatest democratic republic. We should not become a bunch of negative Nellies voting against people and things we don't want. That list is always depressingly endless. The proverbial "Biggest Room In The World." We owe it to ourselves to do the work of figuring out who we really want representing our interests in the halls of government and support them alone with our votes. Their apparent ideals and character.. Then hold them accountable with fire and brimstone once in office.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think the system is a wash ... it will almost always give the same results as normal voting methods ... just using a different zero-point ...

A far more important right is that of Free Speech ... you've done more good by speaking about this than anything you suggest ...

Check out Germany, they vote two different systems at the same time and get VERY different results, from 77% of the seats with FPTP to 35% with PR, same people, same day... different voting system

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

True
A Negative Voting system should increase turnout making for a more democratic election however we don't know in a tradition election how many of those negative B votes would go to A and how many would stay home.
Canidate A would have 75,000+ 10,000 neg votes =85,000 votes
Canidate B would have 45,000+ 45,000 neg votes =90,000 votes

Better yet, declare the candidate with the fewest number of no votes to be the winner.

Candidate A gets 90,000 no votes, candidate B gets 86,000 no votes – candidate B is the winner.

Those who voted no to candidate A can honestly say they neither voted for nor support candidate B.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First, rid politics of all private gifts and contributions. Permanently outlaw the obvious root of government corruption. Next, disallow running under any previously established party name. No more gerrymandering, first-past-the-post, nor Electoral College BS.

This would require at least three amendments to the Constitution, if not more.

Amend the Constitution to nullify Citizens United.

Amend the Constitution to repeal the First Amendment.

Amend the Constitution to eliminate the EC.

Good luck with that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

This would require at least three amendments to the Constitution, if not more.

Damned straight it would. So what. Negative voting ain't happening either. What's easy bears not upon what should be nor makes sense.

 

[ReinyDays]

The only problem with the current voting system is it does not allow voters a choice of saying no, only yes to candidates selected by the two parties for God knows what reason. 35% to 45% of those that are eligible to vote don't vote in national elections. That's about 80 million people that don't vote in America where voting is the bedrock of our freedoms.

<nitpick> It is the right to vote that is the bedrock of our nation ... or not vote ... it is an individual's choice </nitpick>

 

[ReinyDays]

Check out Germany, they vote two different systems at the same time and get VERY different results, from 77% of the seats with FPTP to 35% with PR, same people, same day... different voting system

Is it the system in the OP? ...

 

[JoeMoma]

With the negative voting system, we could have many many more negative votes than positive votes. Candidate A could win the election with -1,000,000 votes compared to -2,000,000 votes for Candidate B. Or.. perhaps Candidate C wins with near zero votes simply he stays off the radar and the main candidates are pelted with negative votes.

 

[Flopper]

With the negative voting system, we could have many many more negative votes than positive votes. Candidate A could win the election with -1,000,000 votes compared to -2,000,000 votes for Candidate B. Or.. perhaps Candidate C wins with near zero votes simply he stays off the radar and the main candidates are pelted with negative votes.

Actually I don't think that is really possible in the negative voting system I described because a negative vote would create a positive vote for the other candidate, but hold on, I'm making a change to the system.

 

[JoeMoma]

Actually I don't think that is really possible in the negative voting system I described because a negative vote would create a positive vote for the other candidate, but hold on, I'm making a change to the system.

I didn't see in the OP that negative vote would create a positive vote for the other candidate..... after all, there may be many "other candidates".

 

[JoeMoma]

He/she has the option to cast that vote for a candidate or against a candidate but not both.