Zone1 The Case for Negative Voting

[Flopper]

We had some really good comments about the negative voting system that reveals several problems so take a look at this system and tell me what you think.

In this new system.
A voter has one vote.
That vote can be cast for or against a candidate or none of the above.
If the voter votes for a candidate, that candidate gets one positive vote
If the voter votes against a candidate, that candidate gets one negative vote
If the voter votes none of the above, all candidates get a negative vote
The winning candidate has the highest vote total or the least negative.

Where the current system only allow voters the option to say yes, this system allows voters to say yes or no to one candidate or say no to all candidates. Also, it offers more incentive to get the 80 million non-voters voting. And it sends a message to candidates that they need to get away from negative campaigning and do a better job of selling themselves to voters if they want to earn their vote. While others systems pay homage to democracy. This system makes voting an important part of our democracy.

What do you think?

 

[Flopper]

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".

And that's one of the reasons I proposed a different system above.

 

[JoeMoma]

If the voter votes none of the above, all candidates get a negative vote

So if there are 10 candidates on the ballot, then a "none of the above" vote will in effect be 10 votes. 10 times the value of the other two options. That could be a problem.

 

[JoeMoma]

So if there are 10 candidates on the ballot, then a "none of the above" vote will in effect be 10 votes. 10 times the value of the other two options. That could be a problem.

On second though, a "none of the above" vote will subtract the same amount from all candidates make that vote useless. Adding or subtracting the same number of votes from all candidates does not affect the outcome.

 

[Flopper]

So if there are 10 candidates on the ballot, then a "none of the above" vote will in effect be 10 votes. 10 times the value of the other two options. That could be a problem.

Not sure. A vote for none of the above does allow voters who feel that way to have voice in the voting process but it does not affect the outcome since each candidates gets a negative vote. Although it is fair to all candidates, it may also cause some problem, not sure"

 

[Flopper]

On second though, a "none of the above" vote will subtract the same amount from all candidates make that vote useless. Adding or subtracting the same number of votes from all candidates does not affect the outcome.

In effect it is a protest vote which would be reported in elections results. It would tell candidates and parties that this number of voters are uncommitted but willing to get out and vote.

 

[ozro]

In effect it is a protest vote which would be reported in elections results. It would tell candidates and parties that this number of voters are uncommitted but willing to get out and vote.

If "none of the above" wins, we would get a new election with new candidates. The candidates defeated by "none of the above" would become ineligible.
That's my 2¢>

 

[Flopper]

If "none of the above" wins, we would get a new election with new candidates. The candidates defeated by "none of the above" would become ineligible.
That's my 2¢>

None of the above because it is not a canidate.

I think the better way of handling None of the above votes is to not include them in vote tallies. That makes it confusing and it serves no purpose. Instead just reported those who found no good choices.

For example:
Candidate A:
For: 6,400,000
Against: -1,000,000
Total: 5,400,000

Candidate: B:
For: 6,000,000
Against: -300,000
Total: 5,700,000 (Winner)

None of the Above Votes for these candidates 1,000,000

 

[ozro]

None of the above because it is not a canidate.

I think better of handling None of the above votes is to not include them in vote tallies For example:
Candidate A:
For: 6,400,000
Against: -1,000,000
Total: 5,400,000

I think it works better to keep it simple and treat "none of the above" as a candidate.

 

[ozro]

Hell, if the candidates for potus in 2024 are Biden and trump, I would even campaign for "none of the above" in that election.

 

[Flopper]

Hell, if the candidates for potus in 2024 are Biden and trump, I would even campaign for "none of the above" in that election.

I think if voters had the opportunity to vote against one of the candidates, there would be a lot less in the none of the above category. Many voters that do not support either candidates will want to vote against one of the candidates.

 

[ozro]

I think if voters had the opportunity to vote against one of the candidates, there would be a lot less in the none of the above category. Many voters that do not support either candidates will want to vote against one of the candidates.

An election is based on voting FOR a candidate. A vote for NOBODY is definitely a vote against all the candidates.
Nice topic btw.
An old Wavy Gravy bit:
Nobody can do a better job!
Nobody can resist corruption and big money!
Nobody can bake an apple pie like mom!
Vote for NOBODY!

 

[Flopper]

An election is based on voting FOR a candidate. A vote for NOBODY is definitely a vote against all the candidates.
Nice topic btw.
An old Wavy Gravy bit:
Nobody can do a better job!
Nobody can resist corruption and big money!
Nobody can bake an apple pie like mom!
Vote for NOBODY!

Today the vote for NOBODY means staying at home and not participating. The Negative Voting allows you to participate in the voting process by casting a vote for none of the above. It doesn't change election outcomes but it does allow you to go on record with your protest and be counted.

 

[ozro]

Today the vote for NOBODY means staying at home and not participating. The Negative Voting allows you participate in voting process by casting a vote for none of the above. It doesn't change election outcomes but does allow you to go on record with your protest and be counted.

Voting for "none of the above " requires voting.
The old wavy gravy bit , or a portion thereof was just to lighten things up.
We need None of the above as a candidate on each and every ballot. IMHO anyway.

 

[ozro]

In another time and a different no de plume.

None of the Above

Nevada has, or at least used to have, a provision on their election ballots to vote for 'none of the above'. I don't live there any longer so this may have changed. If 'none of the above' received more votes than any of the candidates, they held a new election with new candidates. Who here...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Flopper]

Voting for "none of the above " requires voting.
The old wavy gravy bit , or a portion thereof was just to lighten things up.
We need None of the above as a candidate on each and every ballot. IMHO anyway.

I don't thing we should have none of the above listed as a candidate because it is a protest vote and if none of the above should win the election, the state would not have a repersentattive in Washington.

 

[Flopper]

In another time and a different no de plume.

None of the Above

Nevada has, or at least used to have, a provision on their election ballots to vote for 'none of the above'. I don't live there any longer so this may have changed. If 'none of the above' received more votes than any of the candidates, they held a new election with new candidates. Who here...

www.usmessageboard.com

in a local or state election it might be ok, but not in federal election

 

[ozro]

We must simply agree to disagree my friend. I will say you may be on a good track, even if we are in discord.

 

[Flopper]

We must simply agree to disagree my friend. I will say you may be on a good track, even if we are in discord.

This was all just theatrical. Changing how we handle elections would probably be harder than changing the way we handle immigration which is nearly impossible but it was fun thinking outside the box.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Check out Belfast South in 2015, the guy won with 24.5% of the vote. Ridiculous. Most people didn't want him.

Belfast South (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PR works so much better. You don't get much negative voting, especially with a 2% cut off.