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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
There's a reason why ATS does not have negative stars.




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I think voting to not having someone take office is just as worthwhile as someone's vote to have someone take office and are equivalent in worth. I don't think anyone's rights are being infringed at all. In fact I think not allowing it is what's actually infringing peoples rights, as it's making it so people are not allowed to vote against nothing but bad options.

A lot of people don't even vote at all because they don't like any candidates, and they are scorned because they won't pick a side.

How about a none of the above vote. If it wins, then a campaign reset is required. Does this idea have any merit to you?

Is there any option that allows us to tell them that none of the candidates presented are acceptable that counts that will work for you.

As is, if almost everyone writes in, none of the above, and 99.999999% of the populace did so. If even 1 person voted for someone, they would be elected.

This is an absurd way to elect our leaders.
edit on 9/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




How about a none of the above vote. If it wins, then a campaign reset is required. Does this idea have any merit to you?
No. Unless you think a whole new crop of candidates would suddenly appear.
Elections cost money, btw.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Electing the wrong candidates costs even more money. We can't clean up Washington if we're forced to accept whatever # they throw our way as the only viable options



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Who is going to be president while we find one everyone can agree on?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Years ago when I lived in Argentina for a few years the voter could cast a sort of 'none of the above' vote, and if the 'none of the above' votes had majority, then the election would be rescheduled and the parties had to put forward new candidates... at least that is how I remember it. And I thought it was something needed in every republic or democracy in order to hand back a slate of toxic candidates to their parties for replacement.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: WhoDat09

Good question. I don't have all the answers. But continuing to put bad people in charge of our country just to have a leader is no good option either.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Also on the money thing. Corporations and big banks don't like wasting money. If we keep telling them their crony candidates are no good, they'll stop wasting all their money trying to cram them down our throats. That's a good thing in my opinion.

They might have to start having a real dialogue with us, and... omg heaven forbid actually compromise with us, and start implementing policies that benefit us as well as them.
edit on 9/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Whoever's in office can remain until a replacement can be found, or the vice president could come in until a replacement can be found. As soon as someone gets a positive majority vote, you put them in charge to finish the term.

I think your system is quite workable and has real advantages over the one we're using now. Let's keep it in mind in case we ever get a chance at major reforms.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

Which sadly means having a #ty candidate until we find a good one. Which means if I were in the elite's shoes I'd keep putting up crappy candidates and just keep their current puppet in power indefinitely. Not sure that's an effective solution thinking on it... :/



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

True, but eventually somebody would come up with a candidate with a positive number of votes. It may be some small write in from a grass roots campaign, but it would be possible to beat the big well known candidates with even a few votes, if they had negative numbers and the independent had positive numbers.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

Possibly, you have a point.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740




but it would be possible to beat the big well known candidates with even a few votes, if they had negative numbers and the independent had positive numbers.

A candidate that a few people like. I pointed that out.

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



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

As apposed to the candidates we all know and love now?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740
You have a reason to think that a candidate that a limited number of people like would be better?

I mean, they could be, of course. But is there any reason to expect them to be?

How's this sound? Two unpopular and known candidates (that would never happen of course). An evil cabal puts forth someone few have ever heard of. The big guys cancel each other out through negative voting. Now the ringer only needs one (1) vote to become President.

Is that representative government?
edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Remember, everyone still has the power of one vote. This doesn't mean the majority of people will suddenly start voting negative every time no matter what. If we end up with negative candidates that strikes me as a problem. Is there a reason you want candidates who would garner negative poles in the proposed system to win?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740




Remember, everyone still has the power of one vote. This doesn't mean the majority of people will suddenly start voting negative every time no matter what.

Isn't that the premise of the OP? That the ones no one likes will "go away?"
The OP would be perfectly happy to have no one win the election. Did the OP consider that means anyone would win with a single vote?

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



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Isn't that the premise of the OP? That the ones no one likes will "go away?"


Why is this a problem for you?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

Yes. It means that someone a few want (rather than many, no matter how misguided I might think they are) would be President.

That's not how a republic works.

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



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why does it mean that? In order for a president to be disqualified in the proposed system, they would have to receive more negative votes than positive votes. And we already have presidents that very few want. If things are close, it's already possible for small groups to turn the election. The downside's you point out are already here, why not take another approach that offers the plus sides presented by Puppy?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join