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.

 

what if you could vote for"none of the above"?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
what if on voting slips there was an option to vote for "none of the above".this would mean that the general populace are not happy with the current government and not happy with the choices available.which would then mean all parties would have to change/alter there policies untill the general populace agrees with them??

would this not be a true democracy??

i know that i did not really want to vote for anyone on my voting slip..no green party...just the normal lot




posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
My old boss tried this, he was told that his ballot would be invalid. If everyone voted none of the above and 1 person voted for a candidate, that candidate would win.

Their rules and nothing short of a revolution will change it.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
The Republicrats would never allow that to happen!

It would be interesting, tho, to see what the tally would be.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Sorry, but I think that is a completly stupid idea. You do have the choice not to vote. And which ballots would this go on, all of them?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Sorry, but I think that is a completly stupid idea. You do have the choice not to vote. And which ballots would this go on, all of them?


I have to disagree with you, lack of voting is common place these days, what message does that send?

Now, those that vote choose "None of the Above", that sends a message. Pick better representatives.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Dude, voting 'none of the above' is a stupid idea because we elect people to run the government, not catch phrases. I mean, why not add "I really don't care" and "All of the above"? Honestly, you think politicians are genuinely going to heed the publics' outcry from 'nota'. No, they would only be interested in saving their own skin. They will not mold around the publics mind set, few have and few will. IT would give the major parties an advantage; where to spend the money, how much, and when. They would not change and alter their policies.


And who would choose "none of the above"?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
You make a good point Frosty; no politician would probably care that much about it. But at the same time, it would be a little more appropriate than just not going to vote. I mean, there's all sorts of reasons people don't vote--lack of interest or lack of a good candidate are the most prevalent, but there's just times when a people can't get to the polls. By having some sort of option like a "none of the above," anyone who picks it is basically saying "I took the time out of my busy day to let you know that I can't stand any of you."

It still wouldn't really count for much other than somewhat of a public opinion poll, but I think it'd be nice to hear on the news something like "we had a record showing of X people for the presidential election. 85% said they didn't care for anybody who was on the ballot." And the remaining 15% are what are actually counted for the election. I personally would go out and vote because of that--one of the main reasons I don't vote is because none of the candidates are worth the time.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
I mean, there's all sorts of reasons people don't vote--lack of interest or lack of a good candidate are the most prevalent, but there's just times when a people can't get to the polls. By having some sort of option like a "none of the above," anyone who picks it is basically saying "I took the time out of my busy day to let you know that I can't stand any of you."

It still wouldn't really count for much other than somewhat of a public opinion poll, but I think it'd be nice to hear on the news something like "we had a record showing of X people for the presidential election. 85% said they didn't care for anybody who was on the ballot." And the remaining 15% are what are actually counted for the election. I personally would go out and vote because of that--one of the main reasons I don't vote is because none of the candidates are worth the time.


thats what i amk thinking m8...what if it was just a postal or email vote as a preliminary...so that the public could say "well we are not happy with any of your proposals"that way all concerning parties could rethink there policies..and then the vote could go out and if its still the same..i.e none of the above then it becomes a hung parliment..and a revote is needed and the politicians have to get it right..what u all think???



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Ok. There is also a difference between not voting and not going to vote. You do not have to punch a chad or drop a marble for everything on the ballots, including the president. I am doubtful as to whether anyone would allow this to happen the way or voting system relies on a majority, plurality, and the electoral college. Dream about it all you want.

Heratix, the politicians will not change their platforms or their beliefs. If this were allowed to happen, the Republicans are not going to change their stance on abortion and the Democrats on well-fare. They only change spending habits. Besides, this would give an unfair advantage to the two major parties which would sh!t on what the original poster had intended: more parties to become involved. Grassroots movements are more effective.




top topics



 
0

log in

join