"None of the above"

[AZRedhawk44]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/02/01/bill-would-allow-nh-voters-to-vote-none-of-the-above/

In keeping with the bus analogy from here (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=43076.0), and bailing out or choosing no one to drive the damned thing when given the choice between a retard and a paraplegic...

New Hampshire voters get to potentially have "None of the Above" as a valid pick in a VERY early primary State.  This would be a Good Thing^TM.  It would send an early signal that all primary candidates are shtbags and we need an alternate.

Not surprisingly, the bill is sponsored by a representative from Keene, which is a hotbed of Libertarianism and Anarchism.  I really liked this town when I was up in the area.  Go check it out sometime if you're nearby.

[RoadKingLarry]

Need that on every election and if they get beat by a "none of the above" vote thay can never run for office again, ever.

[Devonai]

But then what would Alan Keyes do with himself?

[RevDisk]

Need that on every election and if they get beat by a "none of the above" vote thay can never run for office again, ever.

This is one thing that I think should have been included in the Constitution. A "none of y'all" option in every election, with a ban on said politicians holding office ever again if that options wins.

[Scout26]

And that office goes unfilled during that term.   No recess appointments, or temporary fill-ins.  No deputy holding down the fort.  Just nothing.

[AZRedhawk44]

And that office goes unfilled during that term.   No recess appointments, or temporary fill-ins.  No deputy holding down the fort.  Just nothing.

But, but but what about the new laws?


Can you imagine if POTUS went unfilled for 4 years?

There'd need to be a CinC contingency fill-in for defense purposes, where the previous SecDef or the current Speaker of the House acts as CinC in the event of a war, but otherwise no new legislation can be passed as there is no POTUS.

[RevDisk]

And that office goes unfilled during that term.   No recess appointments, or temporary fill-ins.  No deputy holding down the fort.  Just nothing.

Na, just hold another election in 60 days with the next names down the list.

[Tallpine]

Can you imagine if POTUS went unfilled for 4 years?

It's easy if you try.   

[Angel Eyes]

It's easy if you try.   

You're a dreamer.

[AZRedhawk44]

But he's not the only one.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't get the "never gets to run for office again" part.

[Bigjake]

I don't get the "never gets to run for office again" part.

We had to settle for that when they nixed "firing squad at dawn" 

[drewtam]

I don't get the "never gets to run for office again" part.

Me neither. Wouldn't that discourage small parties from putting forth a candidate. When the majority says "none of the above" to the 2 big parties, all the small party candidates get swept up in the ban.

[Perd Hapley]

Me neither. Wouldn't that discourage small parties from putting forth a candidate. When the majority says "none of the above" to the 2 big parties, all the small party candidates get swept up in the ban.

Among other problems.

[Hawkmoon]

But, but but what about the new laws?


Can you imagine if POTUS went unfilled for 4 years?

There'd need to be a CinC contingency fill-in for defense purposes, where the previous SecDef or the current Speaker of the House acts as CinC in the event of a war, but otherwise no new legislation can be passed as there is no POTUS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rQbj9uvYL8I#t=67

[RevDisk]

Me neither. Wouldn't that discourage small parties from putting forth a candidate. When the majority says "none of the above" to the 2 big parties, all the small party candidates get swept up in the ban.

If folks preferred "None of the Above" more than said third party, I fail to see the problem.