NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm certain we have all by now recieved that issue on whether to add "None of the above" to the voting options. I want to know people's opinions on doing this in real life, because let's face it: in the last election, a large amount of the votes weren't for the candidate but against the other candidate.
I think it would be a good idea. So...yay, or nay, and why?

If you don't want to vote for any of the above, don't vote. It's that simple.

you can just leave the space blank...

Good idea on paper, but the American electoral system needs more work than that.

I saw a movie years ago where Richard Prior played a character who ran for some office on a 'None of the Above' platform, if I recollect correctly, he won the election.... ;)

Anyone else care to comment, or will this be another one of my threads that sinks like lead?

What would the point of a none of the above option? Wouldn't that be the same as just not voting for a candidate? Waste of time.

The point would be to force a new election with better candidates. If the candidates are good enough, then people won't vote "none of the above."

It sounds good at first, but upon further inspection you see what an expensive mess this could be. The neverending election. Yuck.

What we need is to make sure that other candidates can get on the ballots in all 50 states. The answer is choice, not rejection.

I don't see why people want to change the voting process. We've managed to change leaders every 8 (sometimes 4) years without violence or bloodshed. That alone is an incredible acheivment. Why fix what isn't broken?

I'm going to hit the first person that says "BECAUSE A MORON LIKE BUSH WAS ELECTED". He wasn't the first president to lose the popular vote and still win the election (2000, not 2004), and he certainly won't be the last.

So you're saying that if "none of the above" got more votes than any of the candidates, it would force another election? That's interesting, but I'm sure that people wouldn't actually do it. More likely they'd keep going for the "lesser of two evils" approach, afraid that the vote would be wasted otherwise.

If you don't want to vote for any of the above, don't vote. It's that simple.
Exactly. It's pointless to write "none of the above". If you aren't happy with the people on the ballot, do a write-in, for God's sake! And besides, what would happen if "none of the above" won?

I don't see why people want to change the voting process. We've managed to change leaders every 8 (sometimes 4) years without violence or bloodshed. That alone is an incredible acheivment. Why fix what isn't broken?


I really think that the American electoral system is taken for granted. It really is mind-boggling that the worst it ever got was in 2000, where there were some protests outside the Supreme Court and a three-week delay in the results. We should be lucky we can have elections at all, given all the dictatorships in the world.

I don't see why people want to change the voting process. We've managed to change leaders every 8 (sometimes 4) years without violence or bloodshed. That alone is an incredible acheivment. Why fix what isn't broken?

I'm going to hit the first person that says "BECAUSE A MORON LIKE BUSH WAS ELECTED". He wasn't the first president to lose the popular vote and still win the election (2000, not 2004), and he certainly won't be the last.
Well, just because people aren't killing eachother doesn't mean the system is working as well as it could. I mean, at this point the average life expectancy is.. what? 78 or so? Well, that's pretty good, so why bother trying to develop any new drugs, cure diseases, advance medical technology, or do anything else that might add years to people's lives? Because it can still be better. And if you want a reason why the electoral process could be improved, you already said it yourself: it's in bold.

You don't have enough respect for our Founding Fathers, who risked and often gave their lives in order to declare themselves a free and independent nation, to go by their voting system that has worked for over 200 years? I think that the electoral system is as good as we're ever going to get, unless you have a way to just change the entire voting process of the United States in time to hold elections by 2008. You think that cries of corruption were bad this election? Think about what it would be like if we were testing a whole new voting process.

The point would be to force a new election with better candidates. If the candidates are good enough, then people won't vote "none of the above."

If you don't work for the election of the candidate of your choice, and especially if you don't even vote in the primaries, I fail to see how "none of the above" could possibly help you.

In theory, it's a good idea. In practice, it's another thing entirely.

Exactly. It's pointless to write "none of the above". If you aren't happy with the people on the ballot, do a write-in, for God's sake! And besides, what would happen if "none of the above" won?

Well, according to the issue, a new election with a new selection of candidates would be held. Of course, the chances of "none of the above" winning are highly unlikely even with the crappy 2-party system we have.

I'm certain we have all by now recieved that issue on whether to add "None of the above" to the voting options. I want to know people's opinions on doing this in real life, because let's face it: in the last election, a large amount of the votes weren't for the candidate but against the other candidate.
I think it would be a good idea. So...yay, or nay, and why?

Which of the two major political parties, when they have control of the legislative and executive branches, are going to introduce and implement a law allowing people to vote them out?

You could just write in None of the Above if it's that big a deal to you...

Don't waste your vote on 'none of the above;' vote libertarian!

None of the above

Man, I'm lame :)

None of the above

Man, I'm lame :)

Umm ... Nahh! I won't say it! :D

Umm ... Nahh! I won't say it! :D
Ow no, the man with the gun! :eek:

if you just leave it blank or spoil your ballot paper (anarchy man whooo! hippy wankers.) then that counts for nothing, you count for nothing for 4 years. if you are given a legitimate way of registering your dissatisfaction then you can actually make a stain on the shirt of the generalised 2 party system.

but then again, america is a big country, therefore is statistically likely to contain more retards than little countries (every country has a percentage, and america is just bigger), just imagine if they had their own party (cos there are probably some people somewhere in america who vote republican who aren't total retards, meaning they're unlikely to be the official retard party, i wouldn't know not being american).

been doing british electoral reform in history, must say i think stability is no excuse for tyranny in government thatcher you rabid, xenophobic old bitch.

None of the above. Great idea. While we are at it, let's allow people checkboxs to decide what their tax money is spent on. :rolleyes:

There comes a time when you need to consider the nation's size. Could you IMAGINE what a "None of the above" winner would do to the nation and the world? No legitimate governement. No real authority of law. And the financial markets would do a nosedive, leading to massive unemployment.

This sort of thing might work in a local election for a small town. For a BRIEF period. For the whole nation? Heck no!!

if you just leave it blank or spoil your ballot paper (anarchy man whooo! hippy wankers.) then that counts for nothing, you count for nothing for 4 years. if you are given a legitimate way of registering your dissatisfaction then you can actually make a stain on the shirt of the generalised 2 party system.

but then again, america is a big country, therefore is statistically likely to contain more retards than little countries (every country has a percentage, and america is just bigger), just imagine if they had their own party (cos there are probably some people somewhere in america who vote republican who aren't total retards, meaning they're unlikely to be the official retard party, i wouldn't know not being american).

been doing british electoral reform in history, must say i think stability is no excuse for tyranny in government thatcher you rabid, xenophobic old bitch.

Republicans have a much better grasp of the world and economics that the near-socialist government you have across the pond!



Anyway, that wasen't why I posted. I think a "none of the above" vote inspires apathy and pokes fun at the electorial process, while doing nothing to fix it. If you don't like any major party, then vote for a third party, and if you don't like any of them, then request a write on ballot. I can't believe this issue is even being raised! How many people would go to the polls, stand in line, and punch in "undecided" or "nobody, please!", that is absurd. In our country, anyone can campaign and hold office, so if you don't like things promote a third party ACTIVELY!!! Don't just say after the election "Dont blame me I voted for Nader!", go out in campaign if thats what you believe in. (Posting on internet forums dosen't count)

Ow no, the man with the gun! :eek:

ROFLMAO! Not to worry. It's never been fired in anger, only at the range. And you have nothing to fear, only those who harm my family in some way. Mwahahahahaha! :D

Republicans have a much better grasp of the world and economics that the near-socialist government you have across the pond!

didn't vote labour, can't vote labour; am 17 + unlikely to be 18 before tone calls another election + live in a conservative safe seat constituency (horsham! aaaaargh! night of the nearly dead!). so if you're not a tory you just have to vote lib dem and hope you get lucky.

actually, the mild xenophobe party (UKIP rather than BNP) might split they conservative vote, meaning we may just get lucky after all these years in horsham (the shame! the shame!).

that's enough on british politics, but it does go to show; an unrepresentative voting system can be wildly offputting to future voters, so who's up for proportional representation?! (liberal democrats say they'll introduce PR if they win, but will probably just do a labour if they can win on their own).

not too bothered about economics; am a lippy student with a battered leather jacket ie. hate the old etc.

"better grasp of the world" though? what's that? where's best to bomb? oh i'll just stop now.

the entire US electing system is a shambles: they call themselves the mother of all democracies but in fact they aren't. the entire idea alone of a two-patysystem is ridiculous. two parties doesn't include all opinions. it's either black or white in the US.

at this election i felt like kerry would be the best solution but still the lesser of two evils: in my eyes he would do the same defence program as bush but more subtle. :headbang:

Why not just go to the polls and vote for the things you have an opinion on, and for the sections where you have no opinion or cannot decide, just leave it blank?

the entire US electing system is a shambles: they call themselves the mother of all democracies but in fact they aren't. the entire idea alone of a two-patysystem is ridiculous. two parties doesn't include all opinions. it's either black or white in the US.

There is no reference to political parties in the Constitution.

And, BTW: there are more than two parties that ran for President. I live in Connecticut, and we had SEVEN candidates on the ballot.

If you don't want to vote for any of the above, don't vote. It's that simple.

In order to not vote, you should be indifferent to the outcome of the election. A vote of "none of the above" makes it very clear that you care about the outcome, and you think all available candidates are undesirable. Enough "none of the above" votes should void an election, cancel both candidates, call for choosing new candidates, and a new vote.

that's enough on british politics, but it does go to show; an unrepresentative voting system can be wildly offputting to future voters, so who's up for proportional representation?! (liberal democrats say they'll introduce PR if they win, but will probably just do a labour if they can win on their own).

Porportional representation is good!

Why not just go to the polls and vote for the things you have an opinion on, and for the sections where you have no opinion or cannot decide, just leave it blank?

Dislike for all candidates does not equate to no opinion.