It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A new option at the voting booth.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove
So you can't back up your claims.




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Bang on that! most it appears are voting against and not for a candidate so true.
Still think we should just hang em all and reset the whole darn thing
.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Ok. So a total rewrite of the election system. Change the popular voting system. Change the electoral system. Wonderful idea.

Is it feasible? In the real world? Do you have any legislators in mind who would change the existing voting laws that much? Between elections?

Personally, I see it as adding inequality to the system. If a state can't produce a "valid" candidate, they get no voice in the election. Allowing states which like a candidate an advantage. A state saying, "We don't like any of them, but y'all go ahead and decide which one you like."
edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Blueracer

I'm not going to try to prove to you what other people feel and think, it's a trap and nothing more, because you can just say I'm wrong til the cows come home, because it's a matter of opinion, perception and personal experience. It's what I believe due to a life time of watching this, happen. The only way I can prove it to you is to actually go out and pole the entire #ing country to see what they think.

Which actually is what this thread is about, to see what if any other like minded people think of this idea. Part of the point of this thread is to find out where people stand on this issue and idea.

It's like me saying, hmmmm, I've been noticing a trend, I think I'm going to go test it by seeing what others think, and you demanding I prove the trend exists before testing it and putting the idea out there for discussion and polling.

I have observations from a lifetime of experience that are my own, that lead me to consider this idea and put it out there to see where others stand. You're against it and believe my observations are wrong.

Fine you're firmly placed in the negative category. Happy?

That said you have no more proof my observations that more people are voting against a candidate rather than actually believing they are a good choice for president than I do the opposite, as neither of us are omnipotent deities with the collective opinions of every human on this planet at our beck and call.

Unreasonable requests and expectations are unreasonable requests and expectations, and I will not be fooled into playing that game.
edit on 9/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

That's brilliant. I love it.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Hmm. I like the initial premise.

But you make a good point. Do you have an idea to address that issue? Maybe a State against nulls a State for?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Hmmm all you need to do is count a state that's voted negative on all candidates the same way you do votes against the candidates.

Which means a state votes no Hillary or Trump all their votes count against Hillary and Trump.

A certain number of positive votes should be required before a candidate can hold office.

I don't care if it takes us years to finally vote a candidate in because they keep not making the cut. The end result when we finally get candidates worth voting FOR again will be worth it.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: intrptr

Preaching to the quire.



I have seen this a few times this week, but never before in my life.

I always thought it was "preaching to the choir."

Have I always been wrong about this?



edit on 18-9-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: intrptr

Preaching to the quire.



I have seen this a few times this week, but never before in my life.

I always thought it was "preaching to the choir."

Have I always been wrong about this?




No you're right I'm just a doofus that can't spell and took the first spell check that looked like it had the right pronunciation.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Charles Durning would be proud.




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Hmmm all you need to do is count a state that's voted negative on all candidates the same way you do votes against the candidates.
You said the electors could only vote for "positive" candidates.



I don't care if it takes us years to finally vote a candidate in because they keep not making the cut.
So now we need a Constitutional amendment.




edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Blueracer

A few quickly googled polls for your perusal.

1st


2nd


Some info on the reason I think promoting a null vote will clean up our elections. People are more motivated to vote against things they fear. When mudslinging and fear of bad behavior results in both sides losing votes it'll stop being the primary tactic.

Mudslinging

When instead of gaining votes for mudslinging and fear mongering each candidate starts losing votes without gaining votes it makes it a much less tasty game plan.

Now I just grabbed a bunch of the first relevant links I googled, so you're going to have to accept whoever they come from. I'm still relying on my personal experience over these polls. However, you wanted an outside source backing the voting against rather than for claim being a major issue, well here you go. Happy or am I now going to have to hunt and hunt til I find sources that are ok by you?


edit on 9/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)


Stuck with only two sources cause they keep all merging, and is driving me crazy, is why I hate doing this #
edit on 9/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




Some info on the reason I think promoting a null vote will clean up our elections.

A null is not a negative. It is no vote at all.
A negative vote negates someone else's vote. It infringes the voting rights of that person.


edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ok got null wrong thank you for the education.

I however disagree that having a vote against a candidate is doing that at all and is nothing more than semantics.

What you're promoting is that even if 90% of the country is against a candidate, that they should still get in if 10 people voted for them, and everyone else voted for candidates that got 9% of the vote or less.

I think that's ridiculous. A vote against a candidate is viable. If those 90% were all against the 10 the people were for, but simply disagreed on who was a better alternative, you are saying the 90% should be ruled by the 10% candidate they were all against because you don't think it's fair to vote against a candidate directly.

I say that's silly let's allow a negative vote and stop getting candidates most of the country can't stand.
edit on 9/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove
No. It's not semantics. It's mathematics.
Arithmetic, specifically.

Voting "against" someone nullifies the vote of someone who voted for that person. You have removed that person's vote.

edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The thing is, voting isn't just exorcising personal choice, it's a decision that affects everyone else too. I don't want Hillary or Trump. How would me being able to cast a vote against a candidate (essentially saying, anyone but this one), infringe on peoples rights more than a bunch of partisans giving a president I strongly object to authority over me?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No it's semantics and here's why.

A vote is simply a bunch of people coming together and casting their desire for a specific outcome with the majority deciding the outcome.

Ok guys do we want to play tag or hide and seek?

group A: "Ooooh we want hide and seek." 5% of the vote

group B: "We want tag" 10% of the vote

group C: "I don't like either but I really hate tag." 35% of the vote so votes against tag

group D: "I don't like either but I really hate hide and seek" 40% of the vote so votes against hide and seek

Obviously choice, hide and seek and tag are both not good options to entertain the group, obviously we need to start over with different options.

You however seem to believe that.

group A: "Ooooh we want hide and seek." 5% of the vote

group B: "We want tag" 10% of the vote

group C: "I don't like either but I really hate tag." 35% and thus their vote counts for hide and seek

group D: "I don't like either but I really hate hide and seek" 40% of the vote and should go towards tag

Thus making it so that even though 75% of the group really don't want to do either, everyone should just suffer through it, because a small number of people liked those two options, which most people hated but were forced to vote for which they hated less.

Which means you want a system where no matter how hated the candidates are, we're stuck with them, over a system where, if most of the people who will be affected by the candidate options think neither are worthy and we need more worthwhile options can prevent forced rule by a almost universally despised undesirable.

I don't think it's taking away anyone's vote at all, it's voting against a candidate and is equally a vote. It's a vote of no confidence.

Adding a vote of no confidence for a candidate is not taking away anyone elses vote, it's voting no confidence for that candidate. Adding options is not taking it away.

If there is an A or B only vote am I robbing a B voter of their vote when I vote A? If not, why? In both cases I'm cancelling out their vote.
edit on 9/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

How would me being able to cast a vote against a candidate (essentially saying, anyone but this one), infringe on peoples rights more than a bunch of partisans giving a president I strongly object to authority over me?


If you are "essentially saying, anyone but this one", just vote for anyone but this one.


edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




I don't think it's taking away anyone's vote at all,

I didn't say that, did I?
I said it negates that vote. Taking away a vote means that you don't allow that vote. That is not this.


Yeah, "semantics", sure. Easy and often used as a dismissal, but not valid in this case.
edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I am not voting because IMO both candidates honestly suck. What would happen if they did have to start over, who would be president while they found someone new? They would be president for a very long time, because no one will ever agree 100% on any one candidate. I can imagine it going on for years, with people just casting negative votes on one candidate over another.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join