NationStates Jolt Archive

As America is dominated by bipartisanship, and fewer citizens are voting each year, shouldn't the Electorial Ballots offer a broadened decision of not wanting either George W. Bush nor John Kerry into office?? I can only imagine the voter "turn-out" in the United States, if you were allowed the option to say NO to both of these parties.

If American bipartisanship will never be broken then is there still an oppurtunity to return to the old fashioned electorial outcome of forcing the runnerup to take the position of Vice-President?

I agree that a two party system is inefficient, our government limits monopolies in business, but love them in politics. But I would say that most people who dislike both candidates should cast a vote for Kerry, at least he hasn't screwed the country up..... yet.

Last I checked, you still had the other candidates on the ballots.

Blame the people if you think the other candidates should be in office.

Then again, maybe many people don't like thier message.

Many parties with equal power can be just as bad if not worst then a biopoly.

Now a None of the Above would be rather intresting.

It would be expensive but it would be interesting.....

Hmmmm a passing thought.

Maybe the low voter turn out pretty much says "None of the Above" is in play?

Hmmmm a passing thought.

Maybe the low voter turn out pretty much says "None of the Above" is in play?

It does. Why would you vote when there are only bad options and what good things the politicians are saying they'll do they're most likely lying about? I vote, personally, but I can see why some people wouldn't.

I can't see where a 3rd party candidate allows room to offer the "None Of The Above" choice, when there are only 2 parties capable of reaching the presidency.. and those two parties control every aspect of the electorial process.

Isn't the none of the above an option in Russia? If I remember right (I probably don't, mind you) if enough votes for "None of the above" are cast the candidates are given another 3(6?) months to campaign...

I've always approved of that system but I don't think it would work well in America. Maybe if we made some changes and had votes for none of the above mean that the current runners need to be replaced with some new idiots... Ah well, it'll never happen.

Consider for a moment that both parties make a personal search for the best candidate to run.

How many people control that process? :confused:

Americans are literally forced to vote for an individual elected by a small group of wealthy investors.