How about THIS for 3rd choice on your ballots?

[flacaltenn]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

 

[Preacher]

Sure why the hell not

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You bet.

I do not support either choice and think blind partisanship will be the ruin of us all.

 

[CowboyTed]

Why not just use Single Transfer Vote...

I have been saying this everytime someone comes up with one scheme or another...

This has been solved worldwide and allows many candidates and the best one comes out on top...

 

[Auld Phart]

 

[Siete]

already on the ballot .. write in portion.

 

[flacaltenn]

already on the ballot .. write in potion.

What does potion stand for? And what happens if potion gets some electoral votes?

 

[Siete]

already on the ballot .. write in potion.

What does potion stand for? And what happens if potion gets some electoral votes?

it stands for sticking keys after a dp bath

 

[flacaltenn]

Why not just use Single Transfer Vote...

I have been saying this everytime someone comes up with one scheme or another...

This has been solved worldwide and allows many candidates and the best one comes out on top...

If that is similar to "Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) -- it doesn't work very well when you just have 2 choices to begin with. Would work for local or maybe state elections. But to get it to work on National ballots, you'd have to prepare RESERVED candidate alternates OR make the Prez and Vice-Prez choices independent choices.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's called not voting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

No. As much as I can understand the desire for a "vote of no confidence", it - much like Donald Trump's entire cultlike campaign - is simply momentary emotion winning out over logic and reason. There is no follow-up to it, let alone a practical end-game, which means it really accomplishes nothing.

Say you get a majority of people voting, "A pox on all your houses. I don't want any of them." Then what? How do we proceed when the winner is "None of the above"? Do we hold a new election with all-new candidates from every participating party? And if so, who runs the government in the meantime?

As our laws stand right now, a vote of no-confidence - or none of the above, if you prefer - would simply throw the entire question into the House of Representatives and let THEM choose our President. Perhaps you think that's a good idea right this second, because perhaps the current makeup therein would be inclined to decide in favor of the candidate you like. I have no idea. But again, that's very shortsighted, because the House won't always be under the same control.

Furthermore, all that means is that we STILL have either the turd sandwich or the bucket of slime - who sucked so bad that the entire country said, "Screw that" - as President, and all we've done is invest the power of the individual voters into the House, which means candidates can stop even pretending to appeal to voters and simply go to a system where the governing of our country is OPENLY about insider wheeling and dealing. The people will have traded in their only major power to control politicians - the ability to hire and fire them - in for a meaningless, empty symbolic gesture. If we want that, we can always just stand across the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and flip the bird.

 

[flacaltenn]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

No. As much as I can understand the desire for a "vote of no confidence", it - much like Donald Trump's entire cultlike campaign - is simply momentary emotion winning out over logic and reason. There is no follow-up to it, let alone a practical end-game, which means it really accomplishes nothing.

Say you get a majority of people voting, "A pox on all your houses. I don't want any of them." Then what? How do we proceed when the winner is "None of the above"? Do we hold a new election with all-new candidates from every participating party? And if so, who runs the government in the meantime?

As our laws stand right now, a vote of no-confidence - or none of the above, if you prefer - would simply throw the entire question into the House of Representatives and let THEM choose our President. Perhaps you think that's a good idea right this second, because perhaps the current makeup therein would be inclined to decide in favor of the candidate you like. I have no idea. But again, that's very shortsighted, because the House won't always be under the same control.

Furthermore, all that means is that we STILL have either the turd sandwich or the bucket of slime - who sucked so bad that the entire country said, "Screw that" - as President, and all we've done is invest the power of the individual voters into the House, which means candidates can stop even pretending to appeal to voters and simply go to a system where the governing of our country is OPENLY about insider wheeling and dealing. The people will have traded in their only major power to control politicians - the ability to hire and fire them - in for a meaningless, empty symbolic gesture. If we want that, we can always just stand across the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and flip the bird.

Not hard at all to propose that the parties submit an alternate (2nd vote) slate. OR make the Prez and Vice-Prez independent votes. That way if NOTA throws it to the House or wins outright -- there's an option to give it 30 days for a campaign and vote again.

OR give the parties 30 days to come up with a new ticket and vote again. SOMETHING needs to be done to avoid voting OUT OF FEAR of the opposition.

 

[SwimExpert]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

The write-in is the "NOTA" option. We see how often that is utilized.

 

[flacaltenn]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

The write-in is the "NOTA" option. We see how often that is utilized.

There's no real organization of that choice tho. You write in Howard Stern -- I write in Dale Earhnhart. Doesn't work to measure much of anything. Write-ins are for lazy and unqualified candidates.

 

[yiostheoy]

There are actually lots of 3rd Party candidates on the ballot.

Once I voted for Ralph Nader because I could not stand anyone else on the ballot.

But these votes are all wasted.

Normally everyone must choose between the lesser of two weevils.

Bill worked hard to make Hillary look like a nice weevil at least.

Melania was a little lying weevil that reminded us that weevils of a feather flock together and that while you can take the EuroTrash out of the whore house, you can't take the whore house out of the EuroTrash.

 

[yiostheoy]

It's called not voting.

This is going to impact the Senate and House too then.

 

[yiostheoy]

You bet.

I do not support either choice and think blind partisanship will be the ruin of us all.

Blind partisanship is tied on the far right and the far left.

It is the nonpartisan/independent voters who break the tie.

 

[SwimExpert]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

The write-in is the "NOTA" option. We see how often that is utilized.

There's no real organization of that choice tho. You write in Howard Stern -- I write in Dale Earhnhart. Doesn't work to measure much of anything. Write-ins are for lazy and unqualified candidates.

o_0 What exactly do you want it to "measure"? A write-in vote is quite literally saying that you do not want any of the above. Even if you and I both write in two different people, the fact of the matter is that we both voted "none of the above." It's not difficult.

 

[BluesLegend]

The two establishment parties have elections so rigged in our country that short of a billionaire who can't be bought running the establishment parties have a lock on the White House. Oh wait, Trump

 

[flacaltenn]

A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..

So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".

Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?

The write-in is the "NOTA" option. We see how often that is utilized.

There's no real organization of that choice tho. You write in Howard Stern -- I write in Dale Earhnhart. Doesn't work to measure much of anything. Write-ins are for lazy and unqualified candidates.

o_0 What exactly do you want it to "measure"? A write-in vote is quite literally saying that you do not want any of the above. Even if you and I both write in two different people, the fact of the matter is that we both voted "none of the above." It's not difficult.

NOTA IS a write-in essentially. But with actual write-ins -- they are all tallied individually. With NOTA they are all tallied TOGETHER. Get the diff? You might technically "measure" dissent to the choices with a lot of write-in names -- but it would not ADD UP to singularly clear vote of "no thanks"..

And people need to stop THANKING the parties for offering such increasingly arrogant and divisive candidates.