How about THIS for 3rd choice on your ballots?

[Cecilie1200]

What bothers me a lot is the role the media plays in swaying elections. They should have to remain neutral. They have so much influence over people.

Not really sure how you MAKE the media be neutral if they don't want to, without demolishing the First Amendment, which really isn't an area we want to start monkeying around with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually NOTA is ALREADY on a bunch of state primary ballots. And a bunch of state general ballots.

‘None of the above’ beats out all Demo governor candidates in Nevada

In that election NOTA BEAT all the 10 or Dem Governor candidates. It's not a head fantasy of mine. People should see how this is ALREADY working and think about IMPROVING it..

I mean the other part about nominating new candidates and starting the process all over again.

Who is going to serve as POTUS in the meantime? Obama? Joe Biden?

You move the 1st General Election up to Oct. Give the parties 30 days to submit new slates. Do it again in Nov...

Kind of short notice, no?

Not really. Once it was common practice, the parties could declare alternate slates at their conventions. OR just take their chances and fight it out in 30 days with small arms and hand grenades as far as I'm concerned.

So you are saying they should have "back-up" candidates lined up? Well, who's to say those candidates would be any better? My main reason for not wanting to vote for either party is because I want them both to be knocked down and put an end to this duopoly.

And how in the name of God am I, the average voter, supposed to get acquainted with the alternate slate in 30 days sufficiently to want one of them to be President? What, I'm supposed to put my regular life on hold to research them?

Again, a recipe for throwing the entire country into prolonged chaos in service of a national tantrum. We've already got enough of that with Trump's campaign, and the "brilliant" future for Presidential politics that it heralds.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Sounds kind of . . . like something that would never happen. What happens in the meantime, Obama remains POTUS? Yikes.

Well, your plan would let the morons in the House of Representatives decide, so . . .

Huh? Maybe you confused me with someone else? I haven't outlined any plans.

 

[ChrisL]

I mean the other part about nominating new candidates and starting the process all over again.

Who is going to serve as POTUS in the meantime? Obama? Joe Biden?

You move the 1st General Election up to Oct. Give the parties 30 days to submit new slates. Do it again in Nov...

Kind of short notice, no?

Not really. Once it was common practice, the parties could declare alternate slates at their conventions. OR just take their chances and fight it out in 30 days with small arms and hand grenades as far as I'm concerned.

So you are saying they should have "back-up" candidates lined up? Well, who's to say those candidates would be any better? My main reason for not wanting to vote for either party is because I want them both to be knocked down and put an end to this duopoly.

And how in the name of God am I, the average voter, supposed to get acquainted with the alternate slate in 30 days sufficiently to want one of them to be President? What, I'm supposed to put my regular life on hold to research them?

Again, a recipe for throwing the entire country into prolonged chaos in service of a national tantrum. We've already got enough of that with Trump's campaign, and the "brilliant" future for Presidential politics that it heralds.

This is not my idea.

 

[ChrisL]

What bothers me a lot is the role the media plays in swaying elections. They should have to remain neutral. They have so much influence over people.

Not really sure how you MAKE the media be neutral if they don't want to, without demolishing the First Amendment, which really isn't an area we want to start monkeying around with.

My local media is. They don't give their personal opinions about the news. They just report the news.

 

[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?

Sounds kind of . . . like something that would never happen. What happens in the meantime, Obama remains POTUS? Yikes.

Well, your plan would let the morons in the House of Representatives decide, so . . .

Huh? Maybe you confused me with someone else? I haven't outlined any plans.

Oh, sorry. Was talking about Fla. Little distracted here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What bothers me a lot is the role the media plays in swaying elections. They should have to remain neutral. They have so much influence over people.

Not really sure how you MAKE the media be neutral if they don't want to, without demolishing the First Amendment, which really isn't an area we want to start monkeying around with.

My local media is. They don't give their personal opinions about the news. They just report the news.

My local media tries, but it still creeps in.

But that doesn't answer the question of how you MAKE them be neutral if they aren't willing to do it for themselves.

 

[ChrisL]

What bothers me a lot is the role the media plays in swaying elections. They should have to remain neutral. They have so much influence over people.

Not really sure how you MAKE the media be neutral if they don't want to, without demolishing the First Amendment, which really isn't an area we want to start monkeying around with.

My local media is. They don't give their personal opinions about the news. They just report the news.

My local media tries, but it still creeps in.

But that doesn't answer the question of how you MAKE them be neutral if they aren't willing to do it for themselves.

I don't know, but they have way too much power when it comes to swaying the people and their opinions. I'm just remembering when Obama was a candidate. Good Lord, it was to the point of clownish how they fawned over this guy!

 

[kaz]

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.

What is the difference between the left and the "far" left? The whole left side has done wacko

 

[Cecilie1200]

What bothers me a lot is the role the media plays in swaying elections. They should have to remain neutral. They have so much influence over people.

Not really sure how you MAKE the media be neutral if they don't want to, without demolishing the First Amendment, which really isn't an area we want to start monkeying around with.

My local media is. They don't give their personal opinions about the news. They just report the news.

My local media tries, but it still creeps in.

But that doesn't answer the question of how you MAKE them be neutral if they aren't willing to do it for themselves.

I don't know, but they have way too much power when it comes to swaying the people and their opinions. I'm just remembering when Obama was a candidate. Good Lord, it was to the point of clownish how they fawned over this guy!

Yes, but honestly, I think their power is steadily waning. Now the question is, how do we get people to find and pay attention to alternative news sources that aren't talking out their asses?

 

[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.

Actually, it's quite hard to redo the entire primary/choosing nominees/preparing elections process, unless you favor a haphazard, slapdash approach to it, which I can't see as being any sort of improvement whatsoever. It would take months, at least. Did you really think the primary/campaign season was only as long as it is so that people could advertise and snipe at each other (although those things, in and of themselves, are necessary and not something we would want to do away with, however annoying they are)?

So meanwhile, what? Again, you have either the choice of the current officeholders remaining in office until such time as new ones are chosen, or you have the last resort which is currently in our laws, where the House of Representatives chooses our President instead of the voters.

Sorry, but this plan is nothing more than increased chaos in the name of style over substance. "By God, we'll show THEM!" Yeah, and then what?

If the voters massively REJECT the party nominees, then there is no need for another long contorted primary and debates. You have the "bench" ready. You let the PARTY fight it out. OR -- you train them to have a back-up ready before they leave their convention. Doesn't even have to be public. Could be fought out in Committee AT the conventions.. Would only take 30 to 45 days to print the ballots. Could STILL be over before end of November if you moved the General up to October.

 

[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.

Or people could also vote for the lesser parties on the ballot, which would have much the same effect. Also not happening much.

That's my point. My political life has revolved around getting ballot access for 3rd parties. It is a HORRIBLE struggle to get on ballots. Takes all the energy of out of 3rd party volunteers and donors. Too many scurrilous Court challenges. But people are gonna choose Coke and Pepsi over RC Cola. EVEN IF -- the 2 majors totally screw up their products.

So ---- If I can't get folks to stop thinking that they OWE allegiance to the 2 parties --- AT LEAST --- give them a way to reject the choices. They would do that quicker than worrying just about losing.

 

[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.

Dunno about Swim, but I DON'T get any meaningful difference there at all.

What possible difference does it make if you have "some over here, some over there, more in the corner" or "lots right here", if they all amount to the exact same number of votes producing no winner?

I'd say no matter how the voters go about saying, "**** you" to the major parties, the parties still get the point. (This is not to say that they're paying any attention, but they do still get it.)

You cannot legally GROUP write-ins for different names. That's illegal. It goes against voter intent. If I vote for Obiwan Kenobi --- that has to be interpreted literally. A judge would look at your interpretation of "grouping" them all as NOTA and tell you --- "Those people did NOT vote for NOTA -- They voted for Obiwan Kenobi, Sponge Bob, Lady GaGa and Homer Simpson. "


Besides -- NOTA concept is built on having a specific action occur after the election if NOTA wins. And that part requires legislation anyways.

 

[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?

Sounds kind of . . . like something that would never happen. What happens in the meantime, Obama remains POTUS? Yikes.

Well, your plan would let the morons in the House of Representatives decide, so . . .

That's a possibility in THIS election. If 3rd parties get even 29 electoral votes, then ClinTrump has to win by 30 or it goes to the House. Want me list 29 possible electoral votes for Johnson/Weld?

And your comment about leaving Obama in office while it's sorted is not possible. It's a date certain for resolving the transition. The General just has to be moved up. Primaries shouldn't take 3 months anyway..

 

[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?

Sounds kind of . . . like something that would never happen. What happens in the meantime, Obama remains POTUS? Yikes.

Well, your plan would let the morons in the House of Representatives decide, so . . .

That's a possibility in THIS election. If 3rd parties get even 29 electoral votes, then ClinTrump has to win by 30 or it goes to the House. Want me list 29 possible electoral votes for Johnson/Weld?

And your comment about leaving Obama in office while it's sorted is not possible. It's a date certain for resolving the transition. The General just has to be moved up. Primaries shouldn't take 3 months anyway..

"Shouldn't"? Why "shouldn't" they? Because you think political candidates need LESS vetting? Because choosing a President isn't deserving of our time and attention, and should be done on the fly?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Dunno about Swim, but I DON'T get any meaningful difference there at all.

What possible difference does it make if you have "some over here, some over there, more in the corner" or "lots right here", if they all amount to the exact same number of votes producing no winner?

I'd say no matter how the voters go about saying, "**** you" to the major parties, the parties still get the point. (This is not to say that they're paying any attention, but they do still get it.)

You cannot legally GROUP write-ins for different names. That's illegal. It goes against voter intent. If I vote for Obiwan Kenobi --- that has to be interpreted literally. A judge would look at your interpretation of "grouping" them all as NOTA and tell you --- "Those people did NOT vote for NOTA -- They voted for Obiwan Kenobi, Sponge Bob, Lady GaGa and Homer Simpson. "


Besides -- NOTA concept is built on having a specific action occur after the election if NOTA wins. And that part requires legislation anyways.

And grouping is terribly important to the job of "Screw the major candidates" because why?

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I don't know about another election or such things. I doubt that would ever happen. I don't mind the idea of allowing people to cast a NOTA vote though. They could be counted and displayed along with the votes for each candidate so we can see just how unhappy the people are with the choices they are offered. I've read that Hillary and Trump are two of the most unpopular candidates that we've ever had. Those two cannot be the best and brightest. Lol.

 

[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?

Sounds kind of . . . like something that would never happen. What happens in the meantime, Obama remains POTUS? Yikes.

Well, your plan would let the morons in the House of Representatives decide, so . . .

That's a possibility in THIS election. If 3rd parties get even 29 electoral votes, then ClinTrump has to win by 30 or it goes to the House. Want me list 29 possible electoral votes for Johnson/Weld?

And your comment about leaving Obama in office while it's sorted is not possible. It's a date certain for resolving the transition. The General just has to be moved up. Primaries shouldn't take 3 months anyway..

"Shouldn't"? Why "shouldn't" they? Because you think political candidates need LESS vetting? Because choosing a President isn't deserving of our time and attention, and should be done on the fly?

You must be one of those people who think that the current level of media coverage and the reality shows now known as "debates" are informative. You can do more in 1 hour than the media can do FOR you in months.

Find some candidates that ACTUALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS. Will take a lot less time..

 

[ChrisL]

I voted yes to a NOTA vote. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with all the other stuff though. It all sounds a bit rushed and careless to me. I don't know how well that would work out or if it's even possible.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Dunno about Swim, but I DON'T get any meaningful difference there at all.

What possible difference does it make if you have "some over here, some over there, more in the corner" or "lots right here", if they all amount to the exact same number of votes producing no winner?

I'd say no matter how the voters go about saying, "**** you" to the major parties, the parties still get the point. (This is not to say that they're paying any attention, but they do still get it.)

You cannot legally GROUP write-ins for different names. That's illegal. It goes against voter intent. If I vote for Obiwan Kenobi --- that has to be interpreted literally. A judge would look at your interpretation of "grouping" them all as NOTA and tell you --- "Those people did NOT vote for NOTA -- They voted for Obiwan Kenobi, Sponge Bob, Lady GaGa and Homer Simpson. "


Besides -- NOTA concept is built on having a specific action occur after the election if NOTA wins. And that part requires legislation anyways.

And grouping is terribly important to the job of "Screw the major candidates" because why?

Because (for example) -- when you have only 2 choices (not true if you consider the LParty/Green tickets) --- and BOTH those choices are running EPIC high Negatives -- the parties have screwed up. Don't CARE if trump got 40% of the small category of Rep Primary voters. The same for Clinton. THey are both very risky and dangerous candidates.

The partisans think they OWN the process. But the "independents" and the politically frustrated and 3rd party supporters as a group are BIGGER than either of them. And those folks didn't choose the slates (except for the 3rd party who actually DID choose their slates) ..

So at the General -- ALL those other folks get to speak. AND the party animals that HATE the choices their parties made. ---- And if THEY hate ALL the choices -- they should be heard. Those corporations you call political parties are NOT the voice of the voters.

So NOTA is a way to flush risky, unloved, and arrogant slates and PUNISH the parties for choosing like that.