A new option at the voting booth.

a reply to: Puppylove

Your vote has lost literally no worth by this exchange.

It has. Because now, instead of 1 vote for my candidate, there are none. Basic math.

a reply to: Phage

Puppy is correct. You would still have the ability to vote. Your vote would still have the same weight as everyone else's. Puppy is simply adding an option. The direct repercussions of adding the new option would be primarily psychological and emotional (and I agree with Puppy that the indirect effect would be beneficial). The practical effects would allow voters to express their wishes more clearly. Your main objection seems to be the notation being used to tally the votes, rather than the practical effects. Can you offer any counter arguments based on reason or history rather than just emotion?

a reply to: Puppylove

I don't think they will, but people aren't at # it yet, so working with the tools we got til then. I have no ability to force an uprising and neither do you.

You're right, I can only be the change I want to see. Imo, a vote for any candidate is a vote for the status quo.

Voting gives us a feeling of participation, a choice; that 'choice' is an illusion.

originally posted by: Phage
What effect, if any, would this have on the electoral college? Because, if you recall, it is the states which elect the President, not the people.

Easier to control the outcome that way.

Let me try to rephrase Puppy's question. We have candidates for president, everyone has their opinion about each one. Only one can hold office though. What is the best system to determine who takes office? I'm not interested in debating whether negative marks are 'triggering', or whether the ballot should have pizza scented scratch and sniff options. These things aren't about who actually gets elected.

The best way I can imagine the information being collected, is for each voter to submit their honest approval rating for each candidate. Let's say they can rate their approval of each candidate (not just the one they see as most important to them) on a discrete scale from -1 to 1. -1 being the strongest form of contempt, and 1 being the highest form of admiration. If you find the negative marks triggering, we can replace the notation with anything else that can represent the same information. We now have the best possible information to determine how to best satisfy the voters. Should we go for the candidate with the highest total score, or the candidate with the most votes above 0? Obviously, some people would 'cheat' giving exaggerated scores to increase their influence (like, casting a 1 instead of a .7). What is the best way to deal with this issue? Can you demonstrate that our current system is the best possible solution for this problem and no better system exists?

Or, if you truly believe satisfying the voters should not be the primary purpose of an election, please explain what is more important and why.

a reply to: VP740

I like where you're going with this.

a reply to: Puppylove

Thanks!