NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd prefer proportional representation or ranked choice runoff voting, but I wouldn't oppose a none of the above if I couldn't get the other two.

EDIT: My thread now! As such, vote we have Soviet Union style elections! An election for everything, but only one name on the ballot!

As someone who is dissatisfied with all the candidates from the Dems and Repubs that we have been offered, I find it hard to even bother to vote. Essentially, I've been given these choices:

1.) Vote my conscience for a third party candidate -- will have no impact
2.) Vote against my conscience for the "lesser of two evils" -- not exactly in the democratic spirit, now is it?
3.) Refuse to vote for any of these douches and be called apathetic.

Do you think if the United States had more "none of the above" options available in polling places (and not just write-in, either, because the only time I've seen a write-in candidate work was when my town's incumbent mayor won as a write-in in the re-lection year) that people would actually be given a voice against the two-party system?

I mean, 3rd parties get next to no publicity. With no publicity a large number of people are just going to be unaware of these candidates' political positions so when they or if they happen to see their name on the ballot, do you really think they'll vote for someone they've never heard of? In the end, it makes voting for a third-party a worthless exercise. The Dems and Repubs honestly won't care if 5% of the nation splits its vote between various third parties because it has no effect on the visibility of their parties.

But "none of the above" or "none of these candidates" is self-explanatory and gives people who don't like any of the candidates viable option when they go to the polls.

One of the problems I see with this, though, is the demonization of it by the majority parties. Essentially saying that "none of the above" would cause anarchy or something because it might result in someone not getting elected.

Anyway, what do you guys think? I know some countries have this option available and apparently Nevada has available for certain elections too. Any opinions?

But does runoff voting solve the issue of public ignorance towards 3rd parties? They're still be just Democrats and Republicans running and very few stray that far from party politics.

The idea is that with runoff voting, people cannot argue that third parties undermine opposition to the official "enemy". I.e., democrats cannot claim that Nader and the Greens are steeling their vote. Since it is the general election that is used to determine ballot access status, we get the best of both worlds. Third parties get to run, and people won't feel guilty voting for them, and it is much harder for a party to win without the majority of the vote.

I'd prefer proportional representation or ranked choice runoff voting, but I wouldn't oppose a none of the above if I couldn't get the other two.

EDIT: My thread now! As such, vote we have Soviet Union style elections! An election for everything, but only one name on the ballot!

But does runoff voting solve the issue of public ignorance towards 3rd parties? They're still be just Democrats and Republicans running and very few stray that far from party politics.

well think about it this way:

the ignorant and/or stupid (the folk who vote for such evils) are voting less and less these days

now why would are current governments be panicking over this? ;)

though I do agree with the none of the above option if only because proportional representation is normally out of the question

As someone who is dissatisfied with all the candidates from the Dems and Repubs that we have been offered, I find it hard to even bother to vote. Essentially, I've been given these choices:

1.) Vote my conscience for a third party candidate -- will have no impact
2.) Vote against my conscience for the "lesser of two evils" -- not exactly in the democratic spirit, now is it?
3.) Refuse to vote for any of these douches and be called apathetic.

Do you think if the United States had more "none of the above" options available in polling places (and not just write-in, either, because the only time I've seen a write-in candidate work was when my town's incumbent mayor won as a write-in in the re-lection year) that people would actually be given a voice against the two-party system?

I mean, 3rd parties get next to no publicity. With no publicity a large number of people are just going to be unaware of these candidates' political positions so when they or if they happen to see their name on the ballot, do you really think they'll vote for someone they've never heard of? In the end, it makes voting for a third-party a worthless exercise. The Dems and Repubs honestly won't care if 5% of the nation splits its vote between various third parties because it has no effect on the visibility of their parties.

But "none of the above" or "none of these candidates" is self-explanatory and gives people who don't like any of the candidates viable option when they go to the polls.

One of the problems I see with this, though, is the demonization of it by the majority parties. Essentially saying that "none of the above" would cause anarchy or something because it might result in someone not getting elected.

Anyway, what do you guys think? I know some countries have this option available and apparently Nevada has available for certain elections too. Any opinions?

I'll probably vote for a third party, all the while deluding myself into thinking it will make a difference, if only to notify the two main parties of my discontent (and the discontent of all the voters who chose a third party candidate). I've already made it known that if Obama is running against Huckaby, I'm voting for Ron Paul (gasp, choke)- not because Ron Paul has anything to say that I find compelling, but because he's not Obama or Huckaby.

As someone who is dissatisfied with all the candidates from the Dems and Repubs that we have been offered, I find it hard to even bother to vote. Essentially, I've been given these choices:

1.) Vote my conscience for a third party candidate -- will have no impact
2.) Vote against my conscience for the "lesser of two evils" -- not exactly in the democratic spirit, now is it?
3.) Refuse to vote for any of these douches and be called apathetic.

Do you think if the United States had more "none of the above" options available in polling places (and not just write-in, either, because the only time I've seen a write-in candidate work was when my town's incumbent mayor won as a write-in in the re-lection year) that people would actually be given a voice against the two-party system?

I mean, 3rd parties get next to no publicity. With no publicity a large number of people are just going to be unaware of these candidates' political positions so when they or if they happen to see their name on the ballot, do you really think they'll vote for someone they've never heard of? In the end, it makes voting for a third-party a worthless exercise. The Dems and Repubs honestly won't care if 5% of the nation splits its vote between various third parties because it has no effect on the visibility of their parties.

But "none of the above" or "none of these candidates" is self-explanatory and gives people who don't like any of the candidates viable option when they go to the polls.

One of the problems I see with this, though, is the demonization of it by the majority parties. Essentially saying that "none of the above" would cause anarchy or something because it might result in someone not getting elected.

Anyway, what do you guys think? I know some countries have this option available and apparently Nevada has available for certain elections too. Any opinions?

One thing that would hamper the effectiveness of "none of the above" is that too many people think that if they are a member of a political party that they have to vote for who ever is their party's candidate.