NationStates Jolt Archive

Usually there are between 13 to 30 different people running for the Presidency of the United States, and generally Americans only know about 3 of them. It's a game of money. Only the wealthiest expenses can gain notice through US media.

There is a basic understanding that voters in America are comprised of the two major options with Democratic or Republican (3rd party candidates are far below the national interest). Both parties have been in control of the United States for decades and nothing has honestly been changed. America is still the same country it has always been.

My proposal is to create a Voter Consent Law for ALL city, state, and federal elections - by adding onto the candidate list the following PERMANT CHOICE of "None Of The Above".

Example:
[ ] Candidate A
[ ] Candidate B
[ ] None of the Above; For a New Election


A legitimate election requires the ability to withhold consent, and the legitimate consent for voting must require that voters be able to withhold consent to elections of office and request new candidates.

In any state with a permanent, binding "None of the Above" on the ballot, the list of candidates for each office would be followed by the votable line "NOTA - For a new election", or something similar to this need.

If NOTA gets more votes than any candidate for the office, then no one is elected to that office; instead, a follow-up by-election with new candidates must be held to fill that office, until a candidate wins a plurality of votes among all other candidates including "None of the Above."

Before you disagree with this as heresy, let me remind you that this Law is in effect for some American States such as Nevada, Missouri, and currently Massachusetts.

i have no problem with allowing people to vote "No confidence" if that is what their conscience dictates. in fact, i think voter turnout would increase if that were implimented; many people feel like no candidate represents their views and therefore don't bother to cast a ballot, but if they could express their disgust through a "no confidence" option then there would be a reason for them to vote.

I think that a two party state is only one step above a one party state, so anything which breakes the demobuplican stranglehold on US politics is a good thing.

Pity I'm not a US citizen, eh?

I like it, a no confidence vote...

Oh, I wish I could use it this Saturday...My country votes then and there ain't a single candidate worth wasting ink on :(

There are millions of nonvoters in the US. If the number of people "not voting" were to, lets say, vote on a 3rd party candidate - that candidate would gain a real oppurtunity in the race. It almost happened when Ross Perot ran for Presidency (the first time). Keep this thread alive.

I like it, a no confidence vote...

Oh, I wish I could use it this Saturday...My country votes then and there ain't a single candidate worth wasting ink on :(


Vote Yammo!

^_^

Which country are you from, Kanabia?

I think that a two party state is only one step above a one party state, so anything which breakes the demobuplican stranglehold on US politics is a good thing.

Pity I'm not a US citizen, eh?

"Buplican"? :(

democritics and rebumblicans

keep the thread alive

I don't know about the US, but where I live, the blank vote is always the number one (some 40% of the votes or so). It is indicative that something has to be done, but the 2nd best canditate is elected anyway, or the office would stay empty for decades before we find out what is wrong with the system.

I don't know about the US, but where I live, the blank vote is always the number one (some 40% of the votes or so). It is indicative that something has to be done, but the 2nd best canditate is elected anyway, or the office would stay empty for decades before we find out what is wrong with the system.

The N.O.T.A. vote would not only force a new Democratic Elective but it would also force George Bush to step down.. What I like about this idea is that it strongly incourages political parties to chose a more appropriate candidate. America has the best colleges in the world and our best political choices are George Bush & John Kerry?? No, I don't think so.

"Better candidates, better choices"

My opinions on the 2 parties, as stated here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7199573&postcount=24) considered, I'd be in favor of NOTA on the ballot. Something's gotta be shaken up, the system is failing us.
"By consent of the governed" still means something to me.

Both major parties suffer from an identity crisis lately. Neither stands where they did even 20 years ago. Sadly, the line between them has blurred as they both attempt to co-opt each other's issues for broader appeal. The Republican party is guiltier of this recently. It's no longer about serving their voting public, it's about maintaining their power. In addition, both parties pander to their "extremes" in practically the same breath. I don't think they even know or care what the truth is anymore, or whether they are serving the public interest. Being a Republican, for example, (shades of "compassionate conservatism") who both attempts to take democratic issues off the table in order to get more swing votes and also cows to the religious right to "keep their base" is saying two things that equal nothing.

(1)+(-1)=0. It's moonwalking politics, the appearance of forward motion without going anywhere. These are the parties we have to choose from, the Left-handed Righties and the Right-handed Lefties. Pick your poison!

If only one of the minor parties would make their 15% of votes to recieve official status and federal matching funds, then the major parties would be compelled to form coalitions. It would be the same thing as their doing now, effectively. But at least it would be above board and in plain sight. A centrist (swing vote) party would rule the world if it existed.

^_^

I agree. Americans need to get rid of the common acceptance of voting for "the lesser of two evils".

I honestly doubt the controlling parties of the American Federal Government would ever allow this law to pass.

I voted all three ....




because I can ....

I voted all three ....
because I can ....

...oh well it does work for people at the racetrack too.

I picked Kerry and None becuase I didn't know if i was supposed to pick who I want to vote for (Nader) or who I would vote for if I was 18 (Kerry).

This isn't technically who you would vote for.

By choosing NONE OF THE ABOVE, it forces each party to find newer candidates.

To bring something to the attention of those missing the point...

aside from the Democrats being forced to find someone other than John Kerry, it would also force the Republican Party to elect a newer candidate, blahblahblah, George Bush could not run for office either.