None Of The Above.

[MisterBeale]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

We don't need it, we now have an impeachment option.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

We already have that. It's called a "write in."

Wrong. Not even close to the same thing.

 

[Auld Phart]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

This would be anti-democratic.

In most cases the two candidates for a given office are determined by a primary, where the candidates reflect the will of the people.

If the people are unhappy with the caliber of candidates running for office, they need to take action long before election day; they need to get involved in the political process at the very local level and at the very beginning of the political process.

Otherwise, the people are in no position to complain about who is running for office; the people alone are responsible for the bad candidates they get, just as they’re solely responsible for the bad government they get.

In most cases the two candidates for a given office are determined by a primary, where the candidates reflect the will of the people.

And yet, every election, I see candidates from an assortment of parties, (Libertarian, Green, Constitution, etc) on the ballot.

Why not NOTA?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would like to see us to go a more parliamentary system like most other countries. Power is too concentrated and two parties no longer represent most of the country.

Disagree.

As we see in Italy, Israel, and the UK, a parliamentary form of government is far inferior to our Constitutional Republic – the Brexit debacle is further proof of that.

In our Republic the people are subject to the rule of law, not the capricious and unwise rule of the people; a republic is far superior to a democracy – we don’t want the type of laws that they have in the UK, for example, where those who engage in hate speech can be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s the sort of folly the consequence of parliamentary democracy.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

No

for a multitude of reasons

Like?

 

[Mac1958]

The most organic and effective way to do this would be for all of us to hold politicians, pundits, partisans and politicos accountable for their lies, deceit, bullshit, distortion and hypocrisy, even if they are in our party.

Ha ha. Just kidding.
.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

This would be anti-democratic.

In most cases the two candidates for a given office are determined by a primary, where the candidates reflect the will of the people.

If the people are unhappy with the caliber of candidates running for office, they need to take action long before election day; they need to get involved in the political process at the very local level and at the very beginning of the political process.

Otherwise, the people are in no position to complain about who is running for office; the people alone are responsible for the bad candidates they get, just as they’re solely responsible for the bad government they get.

How can a majority voting "NOTA" be undemocratic? They're voting aren't they? The two major parties are not doing it for everyone. If we had the NOTA option maybe they would.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

We don't need it, we now have an impeachment option.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have stopped this crap before it started?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

This would be anti-democratic.

In most cases the two candidates for a given office are determined by a primary, where the candidates reflect the will of the people.

If the people are unhappy with the caliber of candidates running for office, they need to take action long before election day; they need to get involved in the political process at the very local level and at the very beginning of the political process.

Otherwise, the people are in no position to complain about who is running for office; the people alone are responsible for the bad candidates they get, just as they’re solely responsible for the bad government they get.

How can a majority voting "NOTA" be undemocratic? They're voting aren't they? The two major parties are not doing it for everyone. If we had the NOTA option maybe they would.

Because the people voted for the two candidates running for office during the primary – no one voted for ‘none of the above.’

Again, if citizens are dissatisfied with the selection come election day, they need to get involved in the political process to ensure candidates they approve of are on the ballot.

The problem is not ‘bad’ candidates or voting for the lesser of two evils, the problem is apathy, ignorance, and the stupidity of voters too lazy and disinterested to get involved.

‘None of the above’ is a Band-Aid for a brain tumor.

 

[toobfreak]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

We already have that. It's called a "write in."

Wrong. A Write In is for an unlikely 3rd choice that never wins, not a repudiation of the choices already given by the two main parties which are still in effect. A NOTA vote would, once reaching a given threshold, force the two main parties to can their current candidates and start over. That should come with some sort of penalty, you know, like how the government encourages us to pay our taxes------ offer up a good candidate the first time to be sure to avoid the heavy penalty of having yours rejected. And any NOTA candidate would be barred from ever running for any office ever again.

 

[toobfreak]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

We don't need it, we now have an impeachment option.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have stopped this crap before it started?

The funny thing is that Trump IS, in effect, a NOTA candidate! The people rejected all the usual suspects, good as they were, in the other SIXTEEN people the GOP offered, and the people overwhelmingly, at least in 30 states, chose him over Hillary------ the QUINTESSENTIAL Washington Insider Career Politician! Trump was as Seinfeld puts it: the EXACT OPPOSITE of every person who has ever run before! So if they were wrong, he would have to be right!

The problem is that he was SO right, that the losing party has spent their entire capital on blocking his administration and getting him removed from office by any and all means possible.

So -- -- -- you will NEVER have a candidate that everyone likes. There is no such thing as an electable "moderate" that lies in that safe neutral ground in the middle. The two parties are so far apart these days due to the continued radicalization of the Left farther and farther from the mainstream, that the more "right" a candidate is to some people, the more "wrong" he will be to the rest. Therefore, NOTA is nothing but a fantasy.

 

[Auld Phart]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

This would be anti-democratic.

In most cases the two candidates for a given office are determined by a primary, where the candidates reflect the will of the people.

If the people are unhappy with the caliber of candidates running for office, they need to take action long before election day; they need to get involved in the political process at the very local level and at the very beginning of the political process.

Otherwise, the people are in no position to complain about who is running for office; the people alone are responsible for the bad candidates they get, just as they’re solely responsible for the bad government they get.

How can a majority voting "NOTA" be undemocratic? They're voting aren't they? The two major parties are not doing it for everyone. If we had the NOTA option maybe they would.

Because the people voted for the two candidates running for office during the primary – no one voted for ‘none of the above.’

Again, if citizens are dissatisfied with the selection come election day, they need to get involved in the political process to ensure candidates they approve of are on the ballot.

The problem is not ‘bad’ candidates or voting for the lesser of two evils, the problem is apathy, ignorance, and the stupidity of voters too lazy and disinterested to get involved.

‘None of the above’ is a Band-Aid for a brain tumor.

I vote NOTA every primary.

because the ballots here are set up so you can only vote for Republican or Democrat.

I stay home.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

I would like to see us to go a more parliamentary system like most other countries. Power is too concentrated and two parties no longer represent most of the country.

Disagree.

As we see in Italy, Israel, and the UK, a parliamentary form of government is far inferior to our Constitutional Republic – the Brexit debacle is further proof of that.

In our Republic the people are subject to the rule of law, not the capricious and unwise rule of the people; a republic is far superior to a democracy – we don’t want the type of laws that they have in the UK, for example, where those who engage in hate speech can be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s the sort of folly the consequence of parliamentary democracy.

You're incorrect, getting arrested for hate speech has already occurred here in the US.

The three people walking through a dimly lit parking lot near a University of Connecticut student apartment complex probably didn’t know they were being watched. But as the trio crossed in front of an open window repeatedly saying the n-word louder and louder, a person inside wasn’t just observing — they were recording.

Now, university officials say an investigation into the 11-second video, which started to widely circulate on social media earlier this month, has prompted campus police to arrest and charge two students Monday night with violating a Connecticut hate crime statute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/22/uconn-video-white-students-arrested-yelling-n-word/

 

[candycorn]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

No

for a multitude of reasons

Go on, name them then.

We have a term limit on Presidents.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

This would be anti-democratic.

In most cases the two candidates for a given office are determined by a primary, where the candidates reflect the will of the people.

If the people are unhappy with the caliber of candidates running for office, they need to take action long before election day; they need to get involved in the political process at the very local level and at the very beginning of the political process.

Otherwise, the people are in no position to complain about who is running for office; the people alone are responsible for the bad candidates they get, just as they’re solely responsible for the bad government they get.

How can a majority voting "NOTA" be undemocratic? They're voting aren't they? The two major parties are not doing it for everyone. If we had the NOTA option maybe they would.

Because the people voted for the two candidates running for office during the primary – no one voted for ‘none of the above.’

Again, if citizens are dissatisfied with the selection come election day, they need to get involved in the political process to ensure candidates they approve of are on the ballot.

The problem is not ‘bad’ candidates or voting for the lesser of two evils, the problem is apathy, ignorance, and the stupidity of voters too lazy and disinterested to get involved.

‘None of the above’ is a Band-Aid for a brain tumor.

No, the members of the two major political parties selected the two major candidates. They represent less than half of the population as a whole, and only slightly more than half of the registered voters.

Also, the party leadershit decides who they will present as candidates before the members get to vote on them.

A binding NOTA would incentivize them to find candidates who truly do represent the majority.

 

[candycorn]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

No

for a multitude of reasons

Like?

Term limits on Presidents, opens us up to anarchy, and many more.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

We don't need it, we now have an impeachment option.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have stopped this crap before it started?

The funny thing is that Trump IS, in effect, a NOTA candidate! The people rejected all the usual suspects, good as they were, in the other SIXTEEN people the GOP offered, and the people overwhelmingly, at least in 30 states, chose him over Hillary------ the QUINTESSENTIAL Washington Insider Career Politician! Trump was as Seinfeld puts it: the EXACT OPPOSITE of every person who has ever run before! So if they were wrong, he would have to be right!

The problem is that he was SO right, that the losing party has spent their entire capital on blocking his administration and getting him removed from office by any and all means possible.

So -- -- -- you will NEVER have a candidate that everyone likes. There is no such thing as an electable "moderate" that lies in that safe neutral ground in the middle. The two parties are so far apart these days due to the continued radicalization of the Left farther and farther from the mainstream, that the more "right" a candidate is to some people, the more "wrong" he will be to the rest. Therefore, NOTA is nothing but a fantasy.

So tRump one the GOP vote by default?

And we don't need a candidate who appeals to everyone, just one that appeals to most.

 

[toobfreak]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

This would be anti-democratic.

In most cases the two candidates for a given office are determined by a primary, where the candidates reflect the will of the people.

If the people are unhappy with the caliber of candidates running for office, they need to take action long before election day; they need to get involved in the political process at the very local level and at the very beginning of the political process.

Otherwise, the people are in no position to complain about who is running for office; the people alone are responsible for the bad candidates they get, just as they’re solely responsible for the bad government they get.

How can a majority voting "NOTA" be undemocratic? They're voting aren't they? The two major parties are not doing it for everyone. If we had the NOTA option maybe they would.

Because the people voted for the two candidates running for office during the primary – no one voted for ‘none of the above.’

Again, if citizens are dissatisfied with the selection come election day, they need to get involved in the political process to ensure candidates they approve of are on the ballot.

The problem is not ‘bad’ candidates or voting for the lesser of two evils, the problem is apathy, ignorance, and the stupidity of voters too lazy and disinterested to get involved.

‘None of the above’ is a Band-Aid for a brain tumor.

I vote NOTA every primary.

because the ballots here are set up so you can only vote for Republican or Democrat.

I stay home.

Doesn't work. If only three people in your state vote, and two vote for the same candidate, that person wins.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

This would be anti-democratic.

In most cases the two candidates for a given office are determined by a primary, where the candidates reflect the will of the people.

If the people are unhappy with the caliber of candidates running for office, they need to take action long before election day; they need to get involved in the political process at the very local level and at the very beginning of the political process.

Otherwise, the people are in no position to complain about who is running for office; the people alone are responsible for the bad candidates they get, just as they’re solely responsible for the bad government they get.

How can a majority voting "NOTA" be undemocratic? They're voting aren't they? The two major parties are not doing it for everyone. If we had the NOTA option maybe they would.

Because the people voted for the two candidates running for office during the primary – no one voted for ‘none of the above.’

Again, if citizens are dissatisfied with the selection come election day, they need to get involved in the political process to ensure candidates they approve of are on the ballot.

The problem is not ‘bad’ candidates or voting for the lesser of two evils, the problem is apathy, ignorance, and the stupidity of voters too lazy and disinterested to get involved.

‘None of the above’ is a Band-Aid for a brain tumor.

I vote NOTA every primary.

because the ballots here are set up so you can only vote for Republican or Democrat.

I stay home.

That's not NOTA, that's not voting.

Also, primaries are not elections, they are party sponsored events.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

No

for a multitude of reasons

Go on, name them then.

We have a term limit on Presidents.

Nothing to do with this topic. We need to keep the crazies from getting the to start with, not just be glad they are gone later.