Zone1 The Case for Negative Voting

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Awful system (no offense).
1) Because it's too complicated. A lot of the voters really are thicker than yo momma's legs.
2) If you're going to change the system, why not change it for something that really works, that we can see why it works, and has lots of experience working, and we know how we can get what we want out of it?

Proportional Representation has little to no negative voting. Why?
Well, say you're right wing and you want right wing to win, you can vote for any right wing party that's liable to get above the threshold (Denmark has 2%, leads to 10 political parties in parliament, give or take, Germany has 5% and it leads to 6 political parties in parliament). Then your right wing party might end up joining with the other right wing parties to form a coalition which means your vote counted and you will get the representation you want.

Also means political parties have to do what people want, or they die, VERY QUICKLY. In the UK UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in 2015, they were founded in the early 1990s, and they got one seat. In Germany the AfD got 12.6% of the vote in 2017, they were founded in 2013, and they got 90 seats.

In the UK the Tories didn't have to care that much about UKIP, didn't fear losing out to them, but in Germany the CDU were absolutely going crazy and had to change their policies.

 

[badbob85037]

In America, citizens are guaranteed the right to vote. It is considered our civil duty. The freedom to vote our conscience is considered to be one our most basis rights in our democracy. In an election, you can vote for a candidate of your choice. But what if you do not like any of the candidates? The only choice you have today is to sit at home and not go to the polls or cast an invalid vote as protest. However, what if there was a system that allowed everyone to vote the way they feel. Well there is. It's called Negative Voting.

A "Negative Vote" is a vote cast against a candidate, and it will be counted against the positive votes cast for that candidate. The candidate who receives the most net positive votes wins. Each voter still has only one vote. He/she has the option to cast that vote for a candidate or against a candidate but not both. So after all votes are counted we will know who won but also the public, candidates, and the parties will know much of the winners victory is do to his or her popularity vs the unpopularity of the opposition.

We Need a Negative Voting System because:

• As a voter, I should have the right to use my ballot to say: "I do not wish this person to become my leader." Not allowing people to vote No is undemocratic. It is a defect of current election systems and it needs to be fixed. I should have the right to say "NO".
• Negative Voting will increase Participation in our elections. With more voters participating, the result would more accurately reflect the people's will. In today's system where we only have the choice to say "YES", the winner often proudly proclaims he/she has the "popular mandate" when the reality is far from that: many voters did not vote, many voters voted reluctantly for the "lesser of two evils", the "NO" voices were not heard at all. If Negative Vote is adopted, the winner will see clearly that he is not elected by a majority of the population(i.e. no overwhelming mandate) and there were some voters who chose to vote against him. The winner might become more responsive to needs of the voters, more humble, and less arrogant in governing.
• Negative Vote will reduce extremists' influence. The Negative Votes are more likely to be cast by the middle electorate against extremist candidates. Extreme rhetoric will therefore reduce over time.
• 負數票協會 Negative Vote Association

As is now half of America don't vote and most of the ones that do couldn't tell the Constitution from the Planks of Communism. They are low IQed and can be bought with a food stamp and the hint of a little drug money. Besides having a pres that's whole family is in the back middle pocket of China along with every nation the biden family has had a chance to cheat, blackmail, or steal from. Over 5 decades of crimal corruption. Why do you think God killed half his family? But he still didn't clean up his act. God has got him stupid now. Too stupid to repent, going as low as pooping on the Pope. Then still not low enough he changes into lime green pants, even a democRat could figure what's up.

 

[Blues Man]

You like Candidate A and not Candidate B. How do you choose to vote for Candidate A or rather vote against Candidate B?

Or

You can't stand candidate A or B and want to vote for Candidate C because you know both A and B are members of the corrupt system that is responsible for everything being fucked up and you cannot in good conscience vote for either A or B

 

[Papageorgio]

True, you don't know what the turnout will be with negative voting allowed vs a traditionally. However the point is that in Negative voting election gives the negative voters a chance to be heard and thus encourages larger turnouts. It's hard to say what the effect would be on third party candidates. However with a larger turnout of dissatisfied voters it would probably favor third party candidates..

I believe negative voting would put an end to the third party, because even though there would be a larger turnout, it would be mostly negative voting which doesn’t help the third party candidates at all. We need to encourage third parties to do well, Negative voting would only help the two parties own by big corporations and their interests.

 

[DudleySmith]

So the candidate with the most negative votes should lose. How is that different than the candidate with the most vote 'for' winning? A stupid idea that serves no purpose other than validating sniveling over pro-active participation, and in any case such trivialities don't matter in banana republic elections anyway. It will be the same two Parties establishment picking the candidates. The Soviet Union had negative voting, but then they usually had only one candidate on the ballot fro each office; didn't seem to have saved their country or their economy.

 

[candycorn]

In America, citizens are guaranteed the right to vote. It is considered our civil duty. The freedom to vote our conscience is considered to be one our most basis rights in our democracy. In an election, you can vote for a candidate of your choice. But what if you do not like any of the candidates? The only choice you have today is to sit at home and not go to the polls or cast an invalid vote as protest. However, what if there was a system that allowed everyone to vote the way they feel. Well there is. It's called Negative Voting.

A "Negative Vote" is a vote cast against a candidate, and it will be counted against the positive votes cast for that candidate. The candidate who receives the most net positive votes wins. Each voter still has only one vote. He/she has the option to cast that vote for a candidate or against a candidate but not both. So after all votes are counted we will know who won but also the public, candidates, and the parties will know much of the winners victory is do to his or her popularity vs the unpopularity of the opposition.

We Need a Negative Voting System because:

• As a voter, I should have the right to use my ballot to say: "I do not wish this person to become my leader." Not allowing people to vote No is undemocratic. It is a defect of current election systems and it needs to be fixed. I should have the right to say "NO".
• Negative Voting will increase Participation in our elections. With more voters participating, the result would more accurately reflect the people's will. In today's system where we only have the choice to say "YES", the winner often proudly proclaims he/she has the "popular mandate" when the reality is far from that: many voters did not vote, many voters voted reluctantly for the "lesser of two evils", the "NO" voices were not heard at all. If Negative Vote is adopted, the winner will see clearly that he is not elected by a majority of the population(i.e. no overwhelming mandate) and there were some voters who chose to vote against him. The winner might become more responsive to needs of the voters, more humble, and less arrogant in governing.
• Negative Vote will reduce extremists' influence. The Negative Votes are more likely to be cast by the middle electorate against extremist candidates. Extreme rhetoric will therefore reduce over time.
• 負數票協會 Negative Vote Association

Agree in theory...disagree on practice.

What we need is a standard for voting in federal elections more than we need to have qualified voting criteria.

 

[OldFlame]

That it would. No candidate wants to go into office simple because the voters hate the opposition. I think it would cause candidates to spend more selling themself to voters and less time tearing down the opposition, less negative campaigning.

The bolded is simply not true, they will get to power any way they feel they can get there, whether it requires lies, cheating, etc.. They don't care about how they get there, just that they do and have the power in their hands.

 

[Flopper]

Or

You can't stand candidate A or B and want to vote for Candidate C because you know both A and B are members of the corrupt system that is responsible for everything being fucked up and you cannot in good conscience vote for either A or B

The best you could do is vote for none of the above. This would not effect the outcome of the election as it would be a protest vote. Unlike protesting by staying home, your protest against the slate of candidates you are given to vote on is recorded and displayed along with election returns. The none of the above vote are people who care enough about our country to go to the polls and express themselves. This differentiates you from the millions who just don't care who runs the country.

 

[Flopper]

The bolded is simply not true, they will get to power any way they feel they can get there, whether it requires lies, cheating, etc.. They don't care about how they get there, just that they do and have the power in their hands.

Every candidate, locally or higher up wants to have a strong mandate from the people. Winning an election against strong completion foretells a much brighter political future than a winning a race where most of your votes were votes against the opposition. When you beat strong candidates by wide margin that means more to your future that beating a candidate that is generally hated by the public.

 

[Blues Man]

The best you could do is vote for none of the above. This would not effect the outcome of the election as it would be a protest vote. Unlike protesting by staying home, your protest against the slate of candidates you are given to vote on is recorded and displayed along with election returns. The none of the above vote are people who care enough about our country to go to the polls and express themselves. This differentiates you from the millions who just don't care who runs the country.

Which I why I vote for third party candidates.

I register my protest without compromising my values

 

[dblack]

In America, citizens are guaranteed the right to vote. It is considered our civil duty. The freedom to vote our conscience is considered to be one our most basis rights in our democracy. In an election, you can vote for a candidate of your choice. But what if you do not like any of the candidates? The only choice you have today is to sit at home and not go to the polls or cast an invalid vote as protest. However, what if there was a system that allowed everyone to vote the way they feel. Well there is. It's called Negative Voting.

A "Negative Vote" is a vote cast against a candidate, and it will be counted against the positive votes cast for that candidate. The candidate who receives the most net positive votes wins. Each voter still has only one vote. He/she has the option to cast that vote for a candidate or against a candidate but not both. So after all votes are counted we will know who won but also the public, candidates, and the parties will know much of the winners victory is do to his or her popularity vs the unpopularity of the opposition.

We Need a Negative Voting System because:

• As a voter, I should have the right to use my ballot to say: "I do not wish this person to become my leader." Not allowing people to vote No is undemocratic. It is a defect of current election systems and it needs to be fixed. I should have the right to say "NO".
• Negative Voting will increase Participation in our elections. With more voters participating, the result would more accurately reflect the people's will. In today's system where we only have the choice to say "YES", the winner often proudly proclaims he/she has the "popular mandate" when the reality is far from that: many voters did not vote, many voters voted reluctantly for the "lesser of two evils", the "NO" voices were not heard at all. If Negative Vote is adopted, the winner will see clearly that he is not elected by a majority of the population(i.e. no overwhelming mandate) and there were some voters who chose to vote against him. The winner might become more responsive to needs of the voters, more humble, and less arrogant in governing.
• Negative Vote will reduce extremists' influence. The Negative Votes are more likely to be cast by the middle electorate against extremist candidates. Extreme rhetoric will therefore reduce over time.
• 負數票協會 Negative Vote Association

It would definitely be an improvement. Ranked Choice voting achieves similar goals, and more. The issue is changing the voting system. RCV is being promoted first a the local level. The hope is to get people used to it's virtues so that a push for it at the national level is more approachable.

 

[Flopper]

So the candidate with the most negative votes should lose. How is that different than the candidate with the most vote 'for' winning? A stupid idea that serves no purpose other than validating sniveling over pro-active participation, and in any case such trivialities don't matter in banana republic elections anyway. It will be the same two Parties establishment picking the candidates. The Soviet Union had negative voting, but then they usually had only one candidate on the ballot fro each office; didn't seem to have saved their country or their economy.

The Negative voting system is more democratic than our current system because it offers more choices. It will encourage more people to vote because they can vote yes, no, or none of the above. However, the results are harder to understand. Implementing would be difficult and I'm sure there would be legal problems.

 

[Flopper]

Which I why I vote for third party candidates.

I register my protest without compromising my values

I don't think that is good way of protesting the choice of candidates. US Communist Party is promising a 3rd party candidate for president on the 2024 ballot. I doubt that would happen but who knows.

 

[Flopper]

It would definitely be an improvement. Ranked Choice voting achieves similar goals, and more. The issue is changing the voting system. RCV is being promoted first a the local level. The hope is to get people used to it's virtues so that a push for it at the national level is more approachable.

I don't understand how rank choice voting would work

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

In America, citizens are guaranteed the right to vote. It is considered our civil duty. The freedom to vote our conscience is considered to be one our most basis rights in our democracy. In an election, you can vote for a candidate of your choice. But what if you do not like any of the candidates? The only choice you have today is to sit at home and not go to the polls or cast an invalid vote as protest. However, what if there was a system that allowed everyone to vote the way they feel. Well there is. It's called Negative Voting.

A "Negative Vote" is a vote cast against a candidate, and it will be counted against the positive votes cast for that candidate. The candidate who receives the most net positive votes wins. Each voter still has only one vote. He/she has the option to cast that vote for a candidate or against a candidate but not both. So after all votes are counted we will know who won but also the public, candidates, and the parties will know much of the winners victory is do to his or her popularity vs the unpopularity of the opposition.

We Need a Negative Voting System because:

• As a voter, I should have the right to use my ballot to say: "I do not wish this person to become my leader." Not allowing people to vote No is undemocratic. It is a defect of current election systems and it needs to be fixed. I should have the right to say "NO".
• Negative Voting will increase Participation in our elections. With more voters participating, the result would more accurately reflect the people's will. In today's system where we only have the choice to say "YES", the winner often proudly proclaims he/she has the "popular mandate" when the reality is far from that: many voters did not vote, many voters voted reluctantly for the "lesser of two evils", the "NO" voices were not heard at all. If Negative Vote is adopted, the winner will see clearly that he is not elected by a majority of the population(i.e. no overwhelming mandate) and there were some voters who chose to vote against him. The winner might become more responsive to needs of the voters, more humble, and less arrogant in governing.
• Negative Vote will reduce extremists' influence. The Negative Votes are more likely to be cast by the middle electorate against extremist candidates. Extreme rhetoric will therefore reduce over time.
• 負數票協會 Negative Vote Association

Not how it works.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I don't understand how rank choice voting would work

Ranked-Choice Voting: How does it work? - Common Cause​

https://www.commoncause.org/democracy-wire/ra…
WebAug 2, 2019 · Ranked-choice voting is an instant run-off system, meaning that the winner must win the majority of the vote. First, everyone’s first choice is counted. For you, that would be Candidate A. Let’s say that after …

 

[Flopper]

Ranked-Choice Voting: How does it work? - Common Cause​

View attachment 781618
https://www.commoncause.org/democracy-wire/ra…
WebAug 2, 2019 · Ranked-choice voting is an instant run-off system, meaning that the winner must win the majority of the vote. First, everyone’s first choice is counted. For you, that would be Candidate A. Let’s say that after …

If you have only 2 candidates that will get over 99% of the votes, which is the case in most national elections then one of those 2 candidates will have a majority, thus there is no advantage over the current system.

However with primaries or local elections where there are a number candidates I see how it work but it would have to be electronic. Having multiple runoffs and voting at polling places would be a bitch.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If you have only 2 candidates that will get over 99% of the votes, which is the case in most national elections then one of those 2 candidates will have a majority, thus there is no advantage over the current system.

However with primaries or local elections where there are a number candidates I see how it work but it would have to be electronic. Having multiple runoffs and voting at polling places would be a bitch.

Ranked choice voting kept Palin out of the House in the last election for Congress from Alaska.

 

[dblack]

I don't understand how rank choice voting would work

So, imagine you're in a state that requires a majority to win, rather than a plurality. Generally, the way that works is they knockout the lower tiered candidates and hold a runoff election at a future date. RCV basically lets you cast your runoff votes at the same time as your initial round votes. It's often referred to as "Instant Runoff" voting for that reason.

In practice, the way it works is you simply rank all the candidates, from your favorite to least favorite. The first round of voting only looks at first place votes. If one candidate has the majority, they win. And it's over.

If not the candidate with the least votes is removed from the running and votes are counted again. In this round of counting, if your 1st place candidate was removed, your 2nd place selection is used instead. After the second round, if there's still no candidate with a majority, the lowest vote getter is again removed, and another round of counting ensues. This continues until a majority winner is produced (which always happens because the last round will always have at least two candidates, in which case one is guaranteed to have a majority).

It's essentially just a way to automate runoff elections as mentioned above. Not only does this allow you to vote against a candidate by ranking them dead last (or not ranking them at all, same effect), but it removes the spoiler effect, making lesser-of-two-evils a thing of the past. Voters are free to vote their conscience without worrying about what their chances are. Their vote will still count, being passed on to the next candidate in their rankings if their favorite doesn't get a majority.

 

[dblack]

If you have only 2 candidates that will get over 99% of the votes, which is the case in most national elections then one of those 2 candidates will have a majority, thus there is no advantage over the current system.

The reason two candidates always get 99% of the votes is the lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy that dominates plurality voting. That strategy is pointless with RCV.