Zone1 The Case for Negative Voting

[Blues Man]

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.

Yeah I don't want to support the corrupt duopoly so I must be a Communist right?

 

[dblack]

I don't think that is good way of protesting the choice of candidates.

Perhaps you could explain how voting for them is a good way of protesting? As long as we keep eating their shit, they'll keep shoveling it.

 

[d0gbreath]

You vote for a candidate just way you do now with one exception. If the only reason you are voting for A is because you hate B then cast a negative vote against B and the B total vote will be reduce by your negative vote and A remains unchanged.

That means that everyone is getting two votes.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So I get two votes: I vote for A and I vote against B

 

[otto105]

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's called ranked voting.

 

[Pellinore]

I can anticipate a few problems.

1. It means there is a chance that no one gets any votes, and therefore no one wins.
2. In our system, most of our elections have to candidates, a D and an R. It seems that it would be much simpler to just vote for the other candidate.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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

I know some will scream America is a Republic and not a democracy, but America does have a splash of Representative Democracy. The people cannot fit onto the Senate floor so you vote for and choose someone to represent you.

So to have a negative voting idea, it's just nonsensical within a democracy.

The negative voting idea (disapproval voting) is for referendums and recall elections because the vote is to vote yes or no.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

That sounds like your negative vote negates someone else's positive.

 

[Flopper]

Perhaps you could explain how voting for them is a good way of protesting? As long as we keep eating their shit, they'll keep shoveling it.

I said, I don't think that is good way of protesting

 

[Flopper]

I know some will scream America is a Republic and not a democracy, but America does have a splash of Representative Democracy. The people cannot fit onto the Senate floor so you vote for and choose someone to represent you.

So to have a negative voting idea, it's just nonsensical within a democracy.

The negative voting idea (disapproval voting) is for referendums and recall elections because the vote is to vote yes or no.

Why would it be nonsensical? Today, the voter has two options, vote yes or don't vote. That is certainly does not promote democracy. Negative voting, allows the voter to say yes, no, or none of the above.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Why would it be nonsensical? Today, the voter has two options, vote yes or don't vote. That is certainly does not promote democracy. Negative voting, allows the voter to say yes, no, or none of the above.

That's correct, to elect someone in an election, you vote or don't vote.

If a referendum, you are asked yes or no, in or out etc.. In a recall election, it's a yes or no to remove the already elected candidate.

To vote out someone when they're trying to stand is not democracy, to suppress someone is not democratic. I imagine the Left would support negative/disapproval nonsensical voting in an election, they're into suppression.

 

[Flopper]

That's correct, to elect someone in an election, you vote or don't vote.

If a referendum, you are asked yes or no, in or out etc.. In a recall election, it's a yes or no to remove the already elected candidate.

To vote out someone when they're trying to stand is not democracy, to suppress someone is not democratic. I imagine the Left would support negative/disapproval nonsensical voting in an election, they're into suppression.

I raised the issue of negative voting only as a point of discussion. After reading all the posts for and against the various negative voting plans, I presented, I would not support either of them. I would support a plan to put a none of the above option on ballots which would not effect the vote tallies. It would be counted and totaled and would appear with the votes for candidates.

If you vote none of the above, it means you care enough about the country to get out and vote to express your opinion as to the poor choices that are presented to voters. Maybe it would encourage a third party or maybe not.