A new option at the voting booth.

I have an idea for a way to help fix only having bad choices for candidates. It will be a bit chaotic at first, but will require them to start altering how they present themselves and do things.

The option to use your vote to vote AGAINST a candidate. That's right, instead of having to vote for the candidate opposing the candidate you're against, you can instead skip that and use your vote as a null vote. Basically every vote against a candidate counters a vote for the candidate. No more voting lesser evil. If a candidate ends up at negative votes, they are automatically removed from viability as a candidate.

Everyone still only gets ONE vote though so you can either vote for or against a candidate. May end up with some weird people in office for awhile, but at least we can stop voting lesser evil and throw both sides out the effing door.

Let's force them to become something to vote FOR again.

a reply to: Puppylove

Can you all imagine that polling data? I'd be willing to bet both Trump and Hillary would be making record negative votes

Trump and Hillary have just been negged out of another state today... Wow... Um... crap... guys... no one is polling high enough to be in the debates, what do we do?

a reply to: Puppylove

Let's force them to become something to vote FOR again.

UN-voting, huh? They would figure out how to rig that, too.

a reply to: intrptr

Well it's something. We can just stop trying peaceful solutions and skip straight to revolution if you prefer.

a reply to: Puppylove

Oh, can we? Please?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: intrptr

Well it's something. We can just stop trying peaceful solutions and skip straight to revolution if you prefer.

Way past due, imo.

a reply to: lordcomac

Sure we can, I'm not sure we have the numbers to do any good at the moment though. Probably just die pathetically and be called nutter domestic terrorists for our attempt.

Not enough people have hit, # it, yet which is required for a full revolution.

a reply to: intrptr

Preaching to the choir.

Why make it more complicated than it already is? If you vote for a candidate then you are, at the same time, voting against the other candidates.

a reply to: Blueracer

Because most people seem to agree we don't like either choice but are voting for one because we think the other will be worse. What this means is, we are stuck voting for the lesser evil.

With this method you never have to vote for a candidate you don't believe in, which means neither candidate will get votes due to being lesser evil.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say 80% of both Trump and Hillary voters are only doing so because the Trump voters fear a Hillary candidacy slightly more than a Trump candidacy and vice versa for the Hillary voters, but both sides are in agreement in the vast majority that both candidates are bad for this country. If they can instead of voting the opposing candidate they can instead vote no to the candidate they oppose.

Once the votes go in, the result is will be we get none of the above, as both candidates end up in the negatives and we're not stuck voting lesser evil again. Which is a more factual representation of what the people want than having either candidate win.

If we only have #ty candidates we can boot all their asses at the poles, forcing them to clean up their act so we can believe in them again.

As is, the only option is which we think will hurt less.

I'd rather give the people the option to say you're not up to our standards, # off you prig, rather than force us to elect the lesser asshat.

a reply to: Puppylove

There are more than 2 choices. Anyway, like I already said, if you vote for someone you are, in essence voting against all other candidates. This already happens without having to make more rules.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: intrptr

Preaching to the quire.

Oh. Go on thinking peaceful means will upend these warmongers currently running things.

New choices ? Hardly

a reply to: Blueracer

That's bull#, if it were true we wouldn't be stuck in a lesser of two evil scenario.

We're at the point where the only options we are given suck, the only way to fix this is to be able to make it so that they have to supply candidates worth voting for rather than against.

As is, yeah I can write in some great guy or girl I know, but in the end someone bad will win, because people are too scared of what the greater evil will do cause no matter what in the current system one will win.

The system I'm offering negates that throwing away your vote fear, and allows us to put the choices they are trying to force us to the curb.

a reply to: intrptr

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.

It'll happen when it happens, some straw will break, and a collective # it will occur all cause of some emotionally driven event causing a mass backlash.

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.

a reply to: Puppylove

Back in my day we would go one step further If our govening folk cocked up we hung em or chopped their heads off.
So I think add another box to tick saying hang em all lets start again that would make sure they do a good job.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Blueracer

That's bull#,

That's your opinion.

if it were true we wouldn't be stuck in a lesser of two evil scenario.

Again, your opinion. Unless you have something to back that up. I am sure there area a lot of people who vote for candidates because they like them.

We're at the point where the only options we are given suck,

According to you. Doesn't make it so.

the only way to fix this

So you say. I think it just make it even more complicated. And unnecessary.

is to be able to make it so that they have to supply candidates worth voting for rather than against.

As is, yeah I can write in some great guy or girl I know, but in the end someone bad will win,

Maybe. Maybe not.

because people are too scared of what the greater evil will do

Any sources to back that up?

cause no matter what in the current system one will win.

Again, maybe. Maybe not.

The system I'm offering negates that throwing away your vote fear, and allows us to put the choices they are trying to force us to the curb.

I think it just makes things more complicated. And it doesn't really negate anything. Except for the simplicity of how it already works.

a reply to: Phage

Like I said, part of the deal is, and this puts power back in the hands of the people while maintaining the electoral college strength is. A negative vote candidate would be automatically ineligible to be elected. Meaning the electoral college can't do anything because they aren't an option.

I mean seriously if the entire American populace says a candidate isn't even worthy of a positive voting number. Allowing the electoral college to put them in office is ludicrous. So obviously that's part of the reform.

a reply to: Blueracer

I'm not going into a prove it match with you. I can't prove a negative. I'm simply going by what I and many others see.

I know very few people voting for a candidate, and many more voting against.

I'm not of the opinion, at least it's not the other guy, is a great reason for us to be voting for anybody. If that's where we are, then we've hit rock bottom for choices.