A new option at the voting booth.

a reply to: VP740

The downside's you point out are already here

False.
There is no way someone who gets a very small number of votes can be elected under the current system. Unless only a very small number of people vote.

a reply to: Phage

It means that someone a few want

Unfortunately, 'voted for' doesn't necessarily mean 'wanted' in our current system.

a reply to: VP740
Maybe not from your point of view.


Republic. Look it up.

a reply to: Phage

If the candidates in our current system are so wanted, there's no need for you to worry about them being disqualified by the proposed system.

a reply to: Puppylove

I didn't read your thread because I know it's not a vomit bag.

a reply to: VP740

If the candidates in our current system are so wanted,

Just because you or I don't want them, it doesn't mean others don't.

Republic. Look it up.

a reply to: Phage

There are quite a few people I've met personally who've said they're voting for a candidate they wouldn't want, because they have a stronger revulsion of the other candidate. I live in a republic and this doesn't seem rare.

a reply to: Phage

Just because you or I don't want them, it doesn't mean others don't.

Then you have nothing to fear from the proposed system.

a reply to: VP740

Then you have nothing to fear from the proposed system.

Nice try.

Fear has nothing to do with it because it's a pipe dream. But I don't want peoples distaste for a candidate I may favor nullifying my vote. Even if "my" candidate doesn't win I don't want my vote to disappear.

I don't want a few people deciding who the President is.

Look up republic.

a reply to: Phage

But there sure is a way a very unwanted candidate can get in with very few votes actually for them.

People are voting against candidates already, the difference is, now the only way to do that is to vote for their direct competition.

You seem to think a vote for someone you believe slightly less dangerous to your nation is better than a vote against someone you truly believe is a danger to your nation that comes without having to also boost the numbers of the other guy who you also think is a threat.

You have no issue leaving people with the obscene choice of a perceived slightly lesser threat or doing nothing what so ever to stop the bigger threat thus allowing them in. It's a catch 22 impossible situation where no matter what the worst candidates are the only options, because the current system encourages campaigning by fear.

How about the none of the above option with actual teeth. Are you willing to consider that? Is there anything you're willing to consider to try and break the fear based two party stranglehold on this nation?

One thing I can't stand is people that do nothing but put stuff down, while doing not a damn thing to point out or come up with other ways you think will better mitigate the problem.

At least we're attempting to fix a system that appears to be broken. I'm open to ideas, but I'm not open to defending a system that's clearly not working.

Let's brainstorm, which is actually constructive, not just nay say.

Ok you don't like the system I said as I started, I've tried adapting and adjusting. I've offered alternatives. Give me something in return. Help us out with our issues with the current system.

If the issue is you actually like what we have currently, well then I'd rather move on to discuss with others looking for actual solutions, not just working to defend the system we obviously have found fault with. We don't like your current system, we think it falls way short. You don't like what we've proposed. Ok we're starting at the same place on opposite sides.

Let's make some effort to find some way both our issues can be solved. You're a smart guy, clearly you can brainstorm solutions and aren't limited to purely to nay saying.

Here's the problem, we consistently get candidates, that according to most polling and evidence are voted against rather than for, in many cases overwhelmingly so. People don't want them in. If you all could tally all the votes that are purely counter these "desired" candidates of yours they would poll consistently in the negatives or as low as any third party candidate. I'm trying to give people a way out of this predicament.

If you have a better way, please say it. And don't say the current system, as it's clearly failing in this regard. The candidates in office should not be the one people have been convinced is slightly less likely to sell us out.

That's not voting for anyone. People have already lost their vote I'm trying to find a way to get it back. Solutions please. You don't like my ideas even though I've tried to adapt and provide alternate ideas like the "None of the above" with teeth option.

Is the one thing that frustrates me most about is, is so often you're just about tearing things down, rather than help build or fix anything.

a reply to: Phage

That already happens. If more people vote for the other candidate because they dislike yours, you won't get your candidate into office.

Your vote wouldn't disappear, you would simply be outvoted by other people, which is already possible.

a reply to: Phage

Your vote doesn't disappear any more from someone saying I vote against your candidate than it does if someone else votes for your candidate's opponent.

In both cases your vote has been cancelled out, it's still there though. The only REAL difference is that the vote against your candidate didn't also go towards another candidate instead it went towards the none of the above candidate. Who you seem to really despise.

You'd rather the #tiest candidate ever be voted in, than have a chance that all the candidates get told they aren't up to standard and to try again.

Ok fine let's ditch the none of the above candidate by the negative votes system.

How about a none of the above candidate with actual teeth.

Give the ginormous masses of the United States population that detest the options we have been given some way to combat that. I'm begging you to help us find something. Because eventually the helplessness will turn to fury.

My god it's like no matter how much we desperate people try to get help, the only options you all are willing to give us is, accept it and roll over or take it back by force, because you're not willing to address our concerns at all.

a reply to: Phage

Simple Definition of republic : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen merriam-webster

Are you happy now?

a reply to: Puppylove

People are voting against candidates already, the difference is, now the only way to do that is to vote for their direct competition.

False. There is no vote against a candidate. There is only a vote for candidate. My vote for a candidate does not nullify your vote for another candidate. Each gets a vote, if you choose to vote. If you don't, that's your choice.

You seem to think a vote for someone you believe slightly less dangerous to your nation is better than a vote against someone you truly believe is a danger to your nation that comes without having to also boost the numbers of the other guy who you also think is a threat.

Your perception is inaccurate.

You have no issue leaving people with the obscene choice of a perceived slightly lesser threat or doing nothing what so ever to stop the bigger threat thus allowing them in.

Do not attribute thoughts to me.

How about the none of the above option with actual teeth. Are you willing to consider that?

You mean not voting? That is an option. One I, and many, are considering.

Is the one thing that frustrates me most about is, is so often you're just about tearing things down, rather than help build or fix anything.

I'm sorry I frustrate you by applying critical thinking. The intent is not to do so. What you suggest is vindictive. What you suggest says "I don't like your candidate and I don't have one that I do like so I will cancel out your vote. Take that!"

If you have a better way, please say it. And don't say the current system, as it's clearly failing in this regard.

If it is failing it is not because of the voting system.

Is the one thing that frustrates me most about is, is so often you're just about tearing things down, rather than help build or fix anything.

You are the one who wants to tear something down. You are the one who wants to make my vote meaningless.

a reply to: Phage

So if 99.99999% of the US population decided to not vote because they didn't believe any of the candidates were worthy of their vote. And a single person voted.

You're fine with the collective will of 99.99999% of the population being ignored, while that one person gets their way?

An extreme example but is exactly what the current system allows.

Not voting is not the same as none of the above.

I do not believe the people of the United States, should be forced to accept candidates most of the country do not believe in.

We need a none of the above option, and we need it desperately, because more and more voters are getting frustrated with our options, and not voting and thus letting the few choose our leaders is not it.

The only reason people aren't choosing/writing in none of the above in overwhelming numbers is it doesn't matter, even if they get 90% of the vote, it simply gets ignored.

I'm sorry but I will never agree that forcing the majority to accept loathed candidates just so your vote "counts" is reasonable. Why because the none of the above vote is just as legitimate a stance as any candidate you believe in.

Stop trying to make all our votes not count. Let us have our voice too. Let we who think we can get candidates with better standards than we have been be represented.

a reply to: Phage

Your replies sound more like they're based on emotion than critical thinking. You've said voting against a candidate is vindictive. You've said it makes your vote meaningless. You've said nothing to dispute the positive effects proposed int the OP. Can you show an example where this has been tried and caused problems? Can you show a mathematical or reasonable explanation as to why the OP is incorrect?

Can you address this:

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. -Kapriti

How about you apply some of that critical thinking for real?

a reply to: Puppylove

An extreme example but is exactly what the current system allows.

False. The electoral college, remember? The Constitution gives the power to the college, not the people. If people don't vote the college has no popular mandate and can do what they will.

I do not believe the people of the United States, should be forced to accept candidates most of the country do not believe in.

How do you know most of the country doesn't believe in the candidate? I see many people who vehemently support each of the current candidates. You just want to cancel them out.

Stop trying to make all our votes not count.

Ironic. You are the one who want to do that. You want to be able to make my vote not count.

a reply to: Phage

The irony is you believe your vote is more important than everyone else who dares to disagree with the current options.

You're complaining I'm taking away your vote, when all I'm doing is asking for myself and many others to have an actual vote.

The point of voting is to figure out where the people stand and what the people want.

If the vast majority of the country think your candidate is a piece of # that doesn't deserve to hold office. The vast majority's opinion should hold more weight than your single vote. Under what logical pretext should we put your vote for someone nobody else wants above everybody elses desires?

You seem to be thinking that because you're voting FOR a candidate it's someone how more worthy of consideration than an overwhelming number of people voting AGAINST your candidate.

"If you don't like any of the options presented just suck it up and let us choose for you. We only accept votes FOR candidates, too bad you all don't like the options."

Well you know what that sucks and I will never stop fighting that.

a reply to: Puppylove

The irony is you believe your vote is more important than everyone else who dares to disagree with the current options.

Nonsense. My vote is just as important as eveyone else's. No matter how wrong they are.

You're complaining I'm taking away your vote, when all I'm doing is asking for myself and many others to have an actual vote.

You have a vote.

The point of voting is to figure out where the people stand and what the people want.

Correct. Negating what someone else wants does not do that.

Under what logical pretext should we put your vote for someone nobody else wants above everybody elses desires?

Under what pretext should you say my vote doesn't matter?

If you don't like any of the option presented just suck it up and let us choose for you.

If you don't like the options, don't vote. Don't try to tell me my vote means nothing.

a reply to: Phage

Your vote does matter, it just matters the exact same amount as every other individual who thinks your candidate and all the rest are not worthy to hold office.

If your vote is worth one, and each of their votes are worth one, and there's ten of them and one of you. You have a net worth of one vote, while that have a net worth of ten votes.

Your vote counts just as much as every single one of them. It just so happens they have ten votes that disagree with your one vote. Your vote has lost literally no worth by this exchange.

It's basic math Phage, come on here.

Try thinking of "none of the above" as simply another candidate as a thought exercise. If "none of the above" was an actual person according to you, our votes would suddenly magically not be cancelling out yours.

Maybe we need to start pushing a president and vice president team that like in Brewster's Millions stands for none of the above, and agrees to both resign if elected or something... totally ridiculous to have to consider when "none of the above" should be viable on it's own.

Note: Heading to bed, expect no further responses for awhile.