We should have the Right to vote "None of the Above"

This exchange of opinions on this recently posted thread Would you really want Sarah Palin as your President? Is the basis of this thread and the situation we so often find ourselves in.

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Surely you guys can come up with someone better than Sarah Palin. Are there no other candidates? I dont believe that in the US you cant find yourself a decent president.

See, the problem is we really have no say in who we get to vote on.

Sure there are plenty of capable leaders in this country. Unfortunately we usually always seem to end up picking between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

These words are so true
In the last 10 years we have had these choices for president:
2000 = George W Bush and Dick Chaney vs Al Gore and Joe Lieberman
2004 = George W Bush and Dick Chaney vs John Kerry and John Edwards
2008 = Barack Obama and Joe Biden vs John McCain and Sarah Palin

All these choices suck IMHO!!!! When I still had any kinda faith in our system I found myself here on ATS defending candidates that I didn't really like because they were in my opinion the lesser of 2 evils.

To me these choices all of them are lacking and the USA could do much better. The last Great Republican we elected was Ronald Reagan and the last Great Democrat was JFK. Personally these men we Great both in Character and in work ethic and they got things done, some good some bad, but they not only lead by example it just seems to me they had the people's will at the heart of what they attempted to accomplish.

I have lost faith in our election process, one way to restore this faith would be to add "None of the Above" as a choice in all primary and presidential and mid term elections.

If you have a vote when None of the Above is chosen as the majority we would then vote within 30 days in a special election that would be held with a new crop of candidates.

The world is too stupid right now to see another mediocre leader in office.

Yes people should definately get the option of none of the above.

For me the problem is the big wigs take their favorite cronies and make you choose one.
(like thats fair)
What if you didn't want to vote for any of the ones running??
Too bad...you are still stuck with one.

Its like the Bloods offering up their best gangster and the Crips offering up their best gangster and then telling you to vote for one.

What if people don't want a gangster as an option??

reply to post by LDragonFire


No confidence =)
2nd

We haven't had a choice in many, many years. As I posted in that other thread:

Ed Bernays said:

A Presidential candidate may be "drafted" in response to "overwhelming popular demand", but it is well known that his name may be decided upon by half a dozen men sitting around a table in a hotel room

The bankers/corporations choose who they want. We have no say in it. Heck, explain how a junior Senator(he was a Senator, right?) from Chicago with no experience and who had done nothing is now our president. It's a farce.

Explain to me the popularity of Sarah Palin, as she is missing the burger, fries AND the toy from the happy meal. If this crazy broad becomes our next president them I'll probably off myself, as there is no reason to live in this frakked up country anymore.As it stands right now I don't want to live here anymore. I'm fed up with the corporate nanny state.

As my vote would be wasted, I decline to participate. No reason to spend my time doing something worthless as I am already doing that looking for a job.Say all you want about how I should have no right to complain as I don't vote but there is NO reason why I should. I refuse to vote for a Dem or a Repub, so it's just wasted time.

I would have voted for Ron Paul, despite the Repub moniker he wears, if they had given us the chance to but they made sure he was denigrated, despite winning debates on Faux news by a landslide. To see that ass Hannity say that the Faux News poll was compromised by Ron Paul supporters over voting(why didn't the others do the same, eh, Sean?) just proves to me that if TPTB don't like someone they won't get close to being elected.

It's a traveshamockery.

In 2000 you had a third option of Green party candidate Ralph Nader, who fared better than any other third party candidate I'd seen in a while.

In 2004 Ralph Nader ran again, although not as successfully as he had before. Still fared better than any other third party candidate.

In 2008 Mr. Nader again ran a better campaign than any of the other third party candidates.

As for your title, you do have the right, you have the right to leave that section blank. Or not show up at all and forego any other elections in your community.

However, to give you a better post, in general, I want to direct you one of my previously authored threads regarding the electoral college and how to change it for the better. In my personal opinion the one person, one vote movement is non-sense and will destroy third party candidates if it ever takes effect.

Second, in order to combat the disgusting act of gerrymandering by state legislatures I suggest browsing through this article at thinkprogress.org on redistricting reform.

I don't want to pigeonhole you but, too often I find that people frustrated with 'the system' aren't angry in the right direction. Your votes are in the hands of your community and state, not the federal government. Start small to make big changes.

Democracy is always the worst of two evils, normally.

Yep the op is right we should be allowed to vote for none of the above. I would vote like that every time. Although i have never voted and never will, as its futile in my area of london. I would vote none of the above if that option was present on those voting things.

your list of candidates is very short....

guess who i voted for in 2000/2004/2008

en.wikipedia.org...

INDEPENDENT; Main article: Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008
Consumer advocate, Write-in candidate in 1992, Green Party presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000, and 2004 independent candidate. Announced candidacy February 24, 2008 on Meet the Press. Nader received 738,475 votes,[2] the third highest total in the popular vote count.

LIBERTARIAN; Main article: Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008
Former Congressman and U.S. Attorney from Georgia. Barr won the nomination of the Libertarian Party on May 25, 2008 at its 2008 National Convention, in Denver, Colorado with 324 votes on the sixth

GREEN: Main article: Cynthia McKinney presidential campaign, 2008
Former Congresswoman from Georgia (1993-2003, 2005-2007). McKinney clinched the Green Party nomination on July 12, 2008 at its 2008 National Convention in Chicago, IL with 324 delegates.[6] McKinney also received the endorsement of the Workers World Party in July. [7] McKinney received 161,603 votes for 0.12% of the vote



Boston Tea Party
Presidential nominee
Charles Jay Jay was selected as the nominee of the Boston Tea Party at its online Convention held June 15-16, 2008. He was the 2004 Presidential nominee of the Personal Choice Party, which also endorsed him in 2008. Jay received 2,422 votes.[2]


New American Independent Party
Presidential nominee
Frank McEnulty President & Chief Financial Officer of Our Castle Homes from California. McEnulty won the New American Independent Party nomination in March 2008. He simultaneously ran as the vice-presidential nominee of the Reform Party in states where the NAIP was unable to obtain ballot status.[16] McEnulty received 828 votes in Colorado the only state he was on the ballot.[2] Wikinews has related news: Wikinews interviews Frank McEnulty, independent candidate for US President



The Party for Socialism and Liberation
announced the La Riva "People Over Profits" campaign on January 17, 2008. La Riva received the nomination of the Peace & Freedom Party in gubernatorial races in 1994 and 1998. She received 6,808 votes.[2]

Prohibition Party
Presidential nominee
Gene Amondson Temperance lecturer, minister, artist, and 2004 Presidential Nominee. Nominated at the Prohibition Party National Convention held in Indianapolis, Indiana, September 14, 2007. Amondson received 653 votes.[2] Wikinews has related news: Wikinews interviews Gene Amondson, Prohibition Party presidential nominee


Reform Party
Presidential nominee
Ted Weill Businessman, of Mississippi. Weill received the nomination of the Reform Party at its National Convention in Dallas, Texas on July 20, 2008.[16] Weill received 481 votes.[2]

Socialist Party USA
Main article: Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008


Socialist Workers Party
Róger Calero Socialist Workers Party candidate for President of the United States in 2004 and 2008,

reply to post by St Udio


The way it stands now, those parties are jokes compared to the big two, as far as positive coverage and inclusion is concerned. The media tells people the other parties have no chance in hell to win, and to vote for them would be wasting a vote. Most idiots buy into it and make it a reality. Plus the coverage they tend to get makes them look like lunatics or negative in some kind of way, during any debates they are included in....

Many 2000 Presidential ballot included:

Pat Buchanan - Reform Party
Ralph Nader - Green Party
Harry Brown - Libertarian Party
Howard Philips - Constitution Party
John Hagelin - Natural Law Party

In 2004:

Ralph Nader - Independent
Michael Badnarik - Libertarian
Michael Peroutka - Constitution
David Cobb - Green
Leonard Peltier - Peace and Freedom
Walt Brown - Socialist
Roger Calero - Socialist Workers

And, finally, in 2008:

Ralph Nader - Independent
Bob Barr - Libertarian
Chuck Baldwin - Constitution
Cynthia McKinney - Green
and several others were listed on fewer ballots

So, there are always more choices. You need only to educate yourself on those choices and go to a polling place to cast a ballot. Though the third party candidate you choose may not win, significant numbers do affect the amount of money they can receive to bolster their presence in future elections.

And, it sends the same message as "None of the Above".

I am getting the impression that many that complain about the lack of choices, which I agree, do not understand the whole election process nor do they participate to the fullest within it.

That being said, many have begun putting too much faith in one man, the president, to be the solver of all our problems. This is not the model of American politics that was designed. The president was to not be powerful except for the power of the bully pulpit to help sway the People and be our chief Diplomat to the rest of the world.

So much have we allowed the president (present to the past 100 years) to build and garner so much power that the People now truly believe that is where the power lies to make effective and notable change within our system of goverance.

We have allowed the media to skew stories and place responsibility on things such as "Bush's Tax Cuts" or "Clinton's Surplus", which are at best, disingenuous to the intelligence of the American voter. The reason being is that while the direction was set forth by either former president, the ultimate policy is instituted by the Congress.

The choices overall are there, if we engage early and studiously. If we push for candidates that will better serve the overall interests of their constituents rather than the masters of an establishment, we could see some real headway being made. Until then, we remian woefully ignorant to the process and continue to allow the establishment to make the choices for us...

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Of course people at places like this know there are other viable candidates to vote for, and are willing to research them to see who is best. But we are a small minority, a majority of people don't get any other information than the MSM talking heads. So as long as they are marginalizing and ridiculing third parties like they do, they barely have a snowball chance in hell.... Does that stop me from doing so? No, I feel it is my duty to be an informed voter, and vote for the best man, not the least worst of two men.

reply to post by LDragonFire

We should have the Right to vote "None of the Above",

* * * You DO have the right to vote "None of The Above"!!!!! * * *




It has ALWAYS been up to the "PEOPLE" who they want Governing them.

It was NEVER meant to be a case of voting for the lesser of two evils.

If you don't WANT either of them . . . don't ACCEPT either of them!

Speak up!

And change it to who you DO want.

If YOU don't do it . . . who will?????

reply to post by Maiden PEI


Oh really? How would one do that within the canadian system? Also how long do you have to be a citizen, or have to live here before you can vote? I live very close to PEI now.I used to visit in the summertime, and used to go to PEI every summer as a kid for a few days. The ferry was always so fun!

...none of the above - or - no confidence - do they mean the same thing?...

...do either count against a candidate's "yes" votes?...

...if they dont count against a candidate, whats the point?...

I'm surprised no one mentioned Ross Perot he had a respectable showing in '92 and '96 took enough votes from Bush and then Dole to get Clinton into the White House twice. It was serious enough threat to the status quo that I don't think a third party candidate has been allowed in a nationally televised Presidential debate since. Nader never had a chance because America is a Center-Right country and most people here recognize that Green is the New Red.

I personally am really sick of the binary choices that we have. The barriers to entry into a Presidential debate and race are a great hurdle to overcome for any insurgent party to overcome. I think it may be possible, especially after the GOP disapoints the "Tea party" within the next two years, but it's a long shot in any case as any nascent political party must overcome not only the two entrenched parties, but also must overcome a press that is openly hostile to any challenge of the status quo. Unfortunately only someone like Perot who can self-fund has any chance at all of challenging the monied interests of either party.

The electoral college also presents a challenge to any would be third-party candidate. Most states are winner take all in electoral votes, and tend to lean one way or the other naturally. This presents yet another challenge to overcome for anyone wishing to end the Dem/GOP hegemony. Perot, if I remember correctly, had around 30% of the popular vote in'92 and maybe 15% in '96; yet he failed to win a single electoral vote.

Term limits IMHO might be the only viable way to bring any sort of accountabillity to our system. Barring term limits, open primaries might be the only way to rid ourselves of the detrius that inhabits the seats that are supposed to serve us. By mandating open primaries those of us who are not partisan may vote against the current scumbag so that they do not get the chance to run in the general election.

As posted above, the Presidential ballot is full choices and even a blank spot for you to write in a candidate. For the record I proudly wrote Ron Paul's name in 2008. For the smaller races you can leave it blank. The system is far from perfect but it works(barely).

People are waking up to third party candidates and right now the biggest swing vote is the over 60 crowd who tend to vote straight Democrat or Republican. Give it 20 years and I promise you there will be less straight ticket voters and more third party candidates in office.

reply to post by TKDRL

reply to post by Maiden PEI

Oh really? How would one do that within the canadian system? Also how long do you have to be a citizen, or have to live here before you can vote?

Thanx for the reply, TKDRL.

As the OP was talking about the US, I was referring to the US in my reply.

reply to post by WTFover


Thanks for the list I wish you would have included running mates and a break down of state by state that all of the listed candidates were actually of the ballot.

To me this is a illusion that we have choice. Do you think anyone of these other candidates [other than republican or democrat] ever had a prayer of winning?

Its the same illusion that we have competition in business. We can buy our glasses at these different stores Pearl Vision, or Lenscrafters, Sears Optical, JC Penney, Target, Macy’s, Sunglass Hut, it seems that with our free market society we are rich with competition, but upon closer examination all of these companies Listed all are owned by the same corporation. There is no real free market anymore than there is a free and or honest choice when voting at the polls.

I voted in every election for president and mid terms until the 2008 election because I didn't like any of the candidates running. This was not new I didn't like the choices in the 2000 or 2004 elections, but I still voted hoping to see some change. Then starting in 2006 the people started voting for change little did we know that this change would be literal as the change in my pocket grows less and less each years sense.

reply to post by TKDRL

A illusion of choice.
reply to post by TKDRL

Just like everything else our media is owned by very few companies and its in there best interest to see the mainstream political parties win, thus is why we see all the coverage of these candidates [rep. dem.]

I don't claim to know how to fix our system, imho it is very much broken as congress [legislative] the president [executive] and the supreme court [judicial] all no longer serve the people, but there corporate sponsors.

I would love to see new ideas on how to fix our system,this is what is needed.

reply to post by LDragonFire


As I said earlier, a vote for a third party or independent candidate sends the same message as your suggestion of "None of the Above". However, not voting sends the message of apathy, which is what the elite prefers you to be.

I agree.