NationStates Jolt Archive

What do people think of this as an idea

Currently in an electoral system, in (as far as I know) all the democracies in the world, one constant is true. The voiting is always positive. IE you vote for who you want. What your actually voting for varies. Could be a party, could be a candidate, could be a head of government, head of state etc, but you always vote on the basis of what you want. How about this for an idea, in an election you get two sets of votes. One set is worth 2 votes and with that you choose who you want to get into power (whatever the office) and in the other, which is worth 1 vote, you say who you dont want to get into power. Thus its more reflective. Of course this only really works with a multi party system. Also an idea, perhaps you could choose the priority you give your vote. More to the negative or more to the positive.

An interesting idea, I think

Uh, no. Horrible idea. The campaigns are already negative enough without the ability to actually vote a negative.

Interesting Idea but won't work.

However a mandatory option of "None of the Above" might be better.

What do people think of this as an idea

Currently in an electoral system, in (as far as I know) all the democracies in the world, one constant is true. The voiting is always positive. IE you vote for who you want. What your actually voting for varies. Could be a party, could be a candidate, could be a head of government, head of state etc, but you always vote on the basis of what you want. How about this for an idea, in an election you get two sets of votes. One set is worth 2 votes and with that you choose who you want to get into power (whatever the office) and in the other, which is worth 1 vote, you say who you dont want to get into power. Thus its more reflective. Of course this only really works with a multi party system. Also an idea, perhaps you could choose the priority you give your vote. More to the negative or more to the positive.

An interesting idea, I think

Interesting.

I've always thought that one way to make elections more clear is to include a "none of the above" option. If "none of the above" gets the most votes, the elections are reheld, because the people obviously don't want any of the candidates currently running in office.

Hmmm...the two largest parties will still try to tank each other, and with a 2-1 margin, it will never work. Here's my thoughts on the while ordeal.

Every political party under the sun should rustle up some Tom, Dick, or harry to serve as their presidential candidate...say, in the first part of the year. Primaries can still be in May, by which point the parties have chosen their candidates; in June, everyone votes for their first choice. Yes, this system involves a lot of voting for about six months.

So in May, every party picks someone. The field is narrowed to, just to pick a number, 15 people.

In June, the field is narrowed to the top 10 vote-getters.

In July, there is another vote, and the top six get through. Those who survive this long pick candidates for VP.

During the month of July, everyone starts making speeches and stuff, and party platforms are laid out. In early August, the public votes again for their favorite candidates; one person, one vote. The two candidates with the lowest percentage of the vote are eliminated.

Four candidates remain. An informal debate takes place between the four candidates. After that, in early September, everyone votes again. One candidate is out, and by this time, only three candidates remain.

By this time, it's time to meet the VPs as well. Another larger informal debate (the "town hall" debate) is hosted, and all three candidates along with their VPs participate. Come early October, the votes are cast again, and the field is narrowed to two.

In October, three more debates take place - all formal debates. One is for the VPs, one is for the candidates on domestic policy, and one is for the candidates on foreign policy. Then on Election Day, the voters cast their votes. Whoever gets a majority wins; it's as simple as that.

Basically, this idea capitalizes on the immense popularity of shows such as "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars." If people like that sort of setup, let's run our political system like that.

Basically, this idea capitalizes on the immense popularity of shows such as "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars." If people like that sort of setup, let's run our political system like that.
Do you really want this man (http://www.poptower.com/images/db/19/420/300/taylor-hicks.jpg) to be your elected official?

And people in the US already utilize negative voting as a way to keep the most repulsive candidate out of office, that is why the Two-Party system and negative advertising are so entrenched: because the people want it that way.

Do you really want this man (http://www.poptower.com/images/db/19/420/300/taylor-hicks.jpg) to be your elected official?

I'll take him over the guy who looks like Sideshow Bob.

And people in the US already utilize negative voting as a way to keep the most repulsive candidate out of office, that is why the Two-Party system and negative advertising are so entrenched: because the people want it that way.

So instead, they vote for the second-most repulsive candidate. I don't know how the people really feel about that.

Granted, the idea I proposed won't be perfect, but instead of voting between the lesser of two evils, people vote for the lesser of six evils. That's bound to elect someone less evil.

Negative voting would be awesome. At the moment I am forced to vote for the Labour party just to prevent the Conservatives from getting in.

The concept is called Approval Voting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting)

And yes it sounds like a good idea. Less compromise, less voting for the lesser of two evils, and it might even give third parties a shot.

And people in the US already utilize negative voting as a way to keep the most repulsive candidate out of office, that is why the Two-Party system and negative advertising are so entrenched: because the people want it that way.

I've yet to talk to anyone who actually wants it that way. In fact, I've heard quite a bit of bitching over the fact that no party has put up a presidential candidate actually worth voting for in at least the past 8 years. I, for one, would love to be able to vote for a candidate, instead of against the worst one.

I'll take him over the guy who looks like Sideshow Bob.
Sideshow Bob < Jay Leno.
'nuff said.
So instead, they vote for the second-most repulsive candidate. I don't know how the people really feel about that.
Well, considering that they could just as easily vote for a non-repulsive candidate, if they weren't so paranoid about the other guy getting in, they must feel pretty damn good about it.
Granted, the idea I proposed won't be perfect, but instead of voting between the lesser of two evils, people vote for the lesser of six evils. That's bound to elect someone less evil.
We already have at least 6 people running for every office, it's just that the only two who have a prayer of getting in are the Republican and the Democrat.
Which is why this sort of business ultimately fails: the fault doesn't lie in some sort of top-down-power-structure or in a Vast Partisan Conspiracy, the fault lies in the voters, and, until you get rid of them, Democracy can never succeed.

Sideshow Bob < Jay Leno.
'nuff said.
Actually, it seems I was wrong. The something more that must be said is that I meant to put a "greater than" sign there.
It should read "Sideshow Bob > Jay Leno."
Now that's enough said.

What do people think of this as an idea

Currently in an electoral system, in (as far as I know) all the democracies in the world, one constant is true. The voiting is always positive. IE you vote for who you want. What your actually voting for varies. Could be a party, could be a candidate, could be a head of government, head of state etc, but you always vote on the basis of what you want. How about this for an idea, in an election you get two sets of votes. One set is worth 2 votes and with that you choose who you want to get into power (whatever the office) and in the other, which is worth 1 vote, you say who you dont want to get into power. Thus its more reflective. Of course this only really works with a multi party system. Also an idea, perhaps you could choose the priority you give your vote. More to the negative or more to the positive.

An interesting idea, I think

The old folks in Florida would never be able to figure it out.

Sideshow Bob < Jay Leno.
'nuff said.

I rather like Jay Leno, and frankly, Sideshow Bob has already proven to be a cheater. His electoral strategy would get him elected in Chicago, but the rest of us call it "voter fraud."

Well, considering that they could just as easily vote for a non-repulsive candidate, if they weren't so paranoid about the other guy getting in, they must feel pretty damn good about it.

They could, but people have this idea that only two candidates have a chance to win. Sure, people could get together and decide, "You know what? We're sick of this. let's all vote for the Libertarian," but the GOP and Dems control the airwaves, and a Libertarian campaign is horribly impractical. Therefore, people walk out after voting on Election Day feeling liek I did two years ago. I was glad I was voting against Bush, but I didn't really care for Kerry.

We already have at least 6 people running for every office, it's just that the only two who have a prayer of getting in are the Republican and the Democrat.
Which is why this sort of business ultimately fails: the fault doesn't lie in some sort of top-down-power-structure or in a Vast Partisan Conspiracy, the fault lies in the voters, and, until you get rid of them, Democracy can never succeed.

We have a system where the GOP and Dems run everything. Only they can debate, and only they can run lots of ads and inundate people with why the hell they should vote for the GOP and the Dems. The Libertarians just don't have that kind of budget and don't have that kind of clout. However, if it gets time for a debate, in which a Libertarian is still around and is invited BY RULE, then people will watch and say, "Hey, that Libertarian has some pretty good ideas. Hell, the Republican and the Democrat will get through anyway; I'll vote for the Libertarian." And just like that, a third party has legitimacy.

As long as the two major parties make the rules, only the two major parties can get elected. If the rules are more open, third parties get legitimacy. That's the idea behind my system.

Hmmm...the two largest parties will still try to tank each other, and with a 2-1 margin, it will never work. Here's my thoughts on the while ordeal.

Every political party under the sun should rustle up some Tom, Dick, or harry to serve as their presidential candidate...say, in the first part of the year. Primaries can still be in May, by which point the parties have chosen their candidates; in June, everyone votes for their first choice. Yes, this system involves a lot of voting for about six months.

So in May, every party picks someone. The field is narrowed to, just to pick a number, 15 people.

In June, the field is narrowed to the top 10 vote-getters.

In July, there is another vote, and the top six get through. Those who survive this long pick candidates for VP.

During the month of July, everyone starts making speeches and stuff, and party platforms are laid out. In early August, the public votes again for their favorite candidates; one person, one vote. The two candidates with the lowest percentage of the vote are eliminated.

Four candidates remain. An informal debate takes place between the four candidates. After that, in early September, everyone votes again. One candidate is out, and by this time, only three candidates remain.

By this time, it's time to meet the VPs as well. Another larger informal debate (the "town hall" debate) is hosted, and all three candidates along with their VPs participate. Come early October, the votes are cast again, and the field is narrowed to two.

In October, three more debates take place - all formal debates. One is for the VPs, one is for the candidates on domestic policy, and one is for the candidates on foreign policy. Then on Election Day, the voters cast their votes. Whoever gets a majority wins; it's as simple as that.

Basically, this idea capitalizes on the immense popularity of shows such as "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars." If people like that sort of setup, let's run our political system like that.

Thats kind of how we do the state legislature here, theres one primary for everyone running and the two with the most vote are the ones that are up in November.

Thats kind of how we do the state legislature here, theres one primary for everyone running and the two with the most vote are the ones that are up in November.

What state is that in? And do the GOP and Dems still tend to dominate those races?

What state is that in? And do the GOP and Dems still tend to dominate those races?

Nebraska, the elections are supose to be nonpartisian in that no one runs as the canidate for a particular party and they aren't divided into parties in the legislature, the legislature then votes it self to fill the speaker positions and such, but I think most are probably personaly registered to one of the two main parties or the other. Thats just a guess though haven't seen any thing that gives the party registration of the people in office now, I've allways tended to pay more attention to national things then local though I've been trying more recently to change that.. Of course this is just at the state goverment level.
edit:should probably mention that we have a Unicameral system, so no House or Senate if that would effect anything I don't know.