)
That is why I am going to change my name to none of the above and you will be hearing on the news "President Above signed...."
Somebody give this boy a cookie.
Fuck dude. Go find a grownup to explain what words mean.
I came up with this idea about 12 years ago
That would be interesting.
If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.
If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.
Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.
But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.
you do understand that that would mean months of listening to more political adds?
lemme see if I get this;
That would be interesting.
If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.
If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.
Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.
But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.
g5000,
Your almost there... You are really talking about Single Transfer Voting(Alternative Voting).
In a one seat race,
1. Vote as per your preference,
2. Count votes
3. Eliminate last place
4. If your candidate gets eliminated, your vote goes to your next preference.
5. Keep doing 3 & 4 until you get two candidates OR someone gets over half the votes.
6. So all votes(assuming everyone uses all their preferences) will be used for either for the 1st or 2nd place.
Here is Example from Ireland:
View attachment 57005
For expediency and mathematically, if a candidate can't win transfer of next preference he is eliminated. So that is why a few can be eliminated in one count.
This is much in the spirit of what you wanted, I think.
That would be interesting.
If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.
If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.
Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.
But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.
It is an intriguing idea.....and might cut down on negative advertising....cause you might not be helping yourself just hurting the other guy.
That would be interesting.
If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.
If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.
Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.
But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.
It is an intriguing idea.....and might cut down on negative advertising....cause you might not be helping yourself just hurting the other guy.
but neg ads could get more people to vote against another person.
imagine, knowing you are going to be in 3rd, you can get people riled up enough that instead of voting for their guy, they vote against the other guy, your people vote for you and your the winner.
The word republic is specific, even Germany is a republic.
Actually yes. The two main parties remain the two main parties. Usually the have to form a coalition to govern.
I know. But that is your contention. It sort of fits the coherency of your other contentions.
