Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on September 21, 2012, 02:14:49 PM
-
We need something that empowers the non-vote. The declaration that "I deliberately do not vote for either the Giant *expletive deleted*che or the Turd Sandwich."
It'd be nice if candidates in primaries were invalidated if the primary did not draw turnout from x% of registered members of the particular party.
Or the same thing for a general election. If a POTUS election happens and only 40% of the population votes, then the results are invalidated and both candidates are recused from being allowed to run. A follow-up election happens in 4 weeks.
There's problems with it of course, but I think rule by consent of the governed is being thrown aside recently *coughTampacough*
-
Who are we mere peasants to argue with the Party Central Committee? =(
-
As a Republican, I was proud to be known as "the party of 'No'." So if you're forming a new Party of No, I'll sign up for that, too.
-
I would love a Constitutional amendment that allows "None of the Above" as an option, and if it wins the majority, both candidates are barred from future office.
-
A message MUST be sent that the current choices thrust in our faces are unacceptable. It would be ideal to have a "none of the above" or vote of no confidence option, but right now all we have is don't vote at all or vote for a third party. Which do you believe will have more impact?
It has long been argued by our very Government that low voter participation/turnout indicates lack of governmental legitimacy (and therefore justification for regime change). I think that outright non participation would be GREAT but the problem is that no one really counts how many people "didn't vote". If only 10% showed up to vote, and candidate A got 6% and candidate B got 4%, all you would be hearing in the news is that candidate A won by 20%... Americaah!, Democracy! Hell yeah! :facepalm:
If some parallel campaign were made to make an accurate, independently verifiable public account of how many eligible voters CHOOSE not to participate in a system they believe to be fraudulent we might begin to make a dent in the discourse. Perhaps register to vote but then don't show up?
BTW what is the estimate of the number of stay at home voters last election cycle?
-
The only way to make something like this fly would be to amend the rules to automatically include some form of "None of the Above" on every ballot for every position.
There's no real way to count who didn't vote. Having the "NotA" option (with automatic recusal of current candidates and new election in X weeks) would be our best bet...
Another good change would be to remove party-line voting
-
I disagree. "None of the above" is not a solution and doesn't provide anything positive. Its like the curmudgeon at the back of the room that can nit pick, complain, and explain why the idea won't work; but has absolutely no useful ideas.
-
Plus it would give the GOP fanbois more *expletive deleted*it to complain about when folks don't vote for their awful, awful candidate
-
That is actually kinda the plan. It would (theoretically) encourage the folks that dislike both candidates to get out and vote. And it would encourage the parties to start putting up decent candidates...
-
There are numerous third parties out there. Just sayin.
We give the primary parties the power to control the country.
-
Another good change would be to remove party-line voting
Agreed.
There are numerous third parties out there. Just sayin.
We give the primary parties the power to control the country.
True, and we have to find a way to overcome the "I don't want to throw my vote away" mental block. That's some heavy lifting.
The US has really become like a parade of trained monkeys conditioned to respond favorably, or not, to colors (red/blue), single letters(R/D) and cute animal symbols. And if that doesn't work just throw in the words liberal or conservative and you will have people immediately swaying one way or the other.
-
Agreed.
True, and we have to find a way to overcome the "I don't want to throw my vote away" mental block. That's some heavy lifting.
The US has really become like a parade of trained monkeys conditioned to respond favorably, or not, to colors (red/blue), single letters(R/D) and cute animal symbols. And if that doesn't work just throw in the words liberal or conservative and you will have people immediately swaying one way or the other.
Ayup. I've no faith in the general population. Doomed is my prediction, and in my lifetime I don't think the USA will look the way it does now.
-
Where's Perot when you need him?
jim
-
>True, and we have to find a way to overcome the "I don't want to throw my vote away" mental block. That's some heavy lifting.<
Had this discussion any number of times.
First hurdle: any third party looking to be viable HAS to start locally, running for any possible elected position. Then slowly moving up: local to county, then state, and only then national. Immediately putting up someone for pres is a losing proposition.
Second hurdle: the current 2 parties have an enormous amount of control over the process. As soon as a third party starts to show viability, the rules will change to keep them out of the game
-
Second hurdle: the current 2 parties have an enormous amount of control over the process. As soon as a third party starts to show viability, the rules will change to keep them out of the game
Ballot access rules in the US already seem to be designed to do that.
-
Ballot access rules in the US already seem to be designed to do that.
This.
It ain't like the Libertarian Party, to pick a name out of a hat, is a spring chicken that just showed up yesterday. It's as old as *I* am, and elects hundreds of lower-level politicians every cycle. Despite this, EVERY. FREAKIN'. TIME. the LP has to spend a huge chunk - I'm tempted to say the majority, but will admit that I could be wrong about that - of its volunteers' time and the Party's donated money and other resources fighting to get on the ballots across the country (a gift given the the Rs and Ds for the cost of them sending in a declaration of intent and the requisite, nominal filing fee) and fighting off spurious and petty "challenges" to said ballot-access by one or the other of the two wings of our Modern American Political Machine. Because permitting the people to be able to choose from more than Column R or Column D is a BAAAAAD THING, apparently. :facepalm:
What could the LP accomplish if, instead of spending all that time and money on the ballot access gifted to the Rs and Ds, it could instead use that to get their message out better, the way the Rs and Ds do?
When the game's rigged against them as it is, any third-party which manages merely to get on enough ballots to potentially hit 270 EC votes in a Presidential election deserves to be congratulated, regardless of the actual vote count.
-
This.
It ain't like the Libertarian Party, to pick a name out of a hat, is a spring chicken that just showed up yesterday. It's as old as *I* am, and elects hundreds of lower-level politicians every cycle. Despite this, EVERY. FREAKIN'. TIME. the LP has to spend a huge chunk - I'm tempted to say the majority, but will admit that I could be wrong about that - of its volunteers' time and the Party's donated money and other resources fighting to get on the ballots across the country (a gift given the the Rs and Ds for the cost of them sending in a declaration of intent and the requisite, nominal filing fee) and fighting off spurious and petty "challenges" to said ballot-access by one or the other of the two wings of our Modern American Political Machine. Because permitting the people to be able to choose from more than Column R or Column D is a BAAAAAD THING, apparently. :facepalm:
What could the LP accomplish if, instead of spending all that time and money on the ballot access gifted to the Rs and Ds, it could instead use that to get their message out better, the way the Rs and Ds do?
When the game's rigged against them as it is, any third-party which manages merely to get on enough ballots to potentially hit 270 EC votes in a Presidential election deserves to be congratulated, regardless of the actual vote count.
This. Times a hundred billion million jillion.
The LP especially is blocked from debates, and challenged from every dark corner.
-
I disagree. "None of the above" is not a solution and doesn't provide anything positive. Its like the curmudgeon at the back of the room that can nit pick, complain, and explain why the idea won't work; but has absolutely no useful ideas.
I respectfully disagree. It would be a tool that could be used by the people against the political parties. Trust me, I have been doing state level politics my entire life. Dems and Republicans may not like each other, but they will both protect the system above all else.
Folks don't elect politicians. They approve the party decisions. I have no idea why this is not common knowledge.
-
>True, and we have to find a way to overcome the "I don't want to throw my vote away" mental block. That's some heavy lifting.<
Had this discussion any number of times.
First hurdle: any third party looking to be viable HAS to start locally, running for any possible elected position. Then slowly moving up: local to county, then state, and only then national. Immediately putting up someone for pres is a losing proposition.
Second hurdle: the current 2 parties have an enormous amount of control over the process. As soon as a third party starts to show viability, the rules will change to keep them out of the game
I can't remember my antebellum history/politics that well ... did the fledgling Republican party do that ???
-
We need something that empowers the non-vote. The declaration that "I deliberately do not vote for either the Giant *expletive deleted* or the Turd Sandwich."
It'd be nice if candidates in primaries were invalidated if the primary did not draw turnout from x% of registered members of the particular party.
Or the same thing for a general election. If a POTUS election happens and only 40% of the population votes, then the results are invalidated and both candidates are recused from being allowed to run. A follow-up election happens in 4 weeks.
There's problems with it of course, but I think rule by consent of the governed is being thrown aside recently *coughTampacough*
Who is John Galt?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u72l395HjIY
Hear, Hear!
-
Plus it would give the GOP fanbois more *expletive deleted* to complain about when folks don't vote for their awful, awful candidate
But, ZOMG! This is the most important election of the century! We just have to vote in the GOP so we can get Conservative (Roberts, Kennedy cough!) Justices for SCOTUS!
-
But, ZOMG! This is the most important election of the century! We just have to vote in the GOP so we can get Conservative (Robert, Kennedy cough!) Justices for SCOTUS!
You are clearly a terrorist
-
If NONE OF THE ABOVE gets the majority, can't the office of POTUS just remain vacant? We could use the break.
-
You are clearly a terrorist
Well flush my Koran and ship me to Gitmo! =D
-
True, and we have to find a way to overcome the "I don't want to throw my vote away" mental block. That's some heavy lifting.
It's not a mental block, and it can't just be overcome. People don't vote that way because they are stupid, they vote that way because it's the best way to vote. In any simple majority democratic system, any two parties can gain ground against the rest by combining. This continues until by reduction, we are left with two parties, which are themselves nearly identical.
The problem is baked into our voting system, and it's not the fault of some mental block on the part of the citizens. The simple majority ballot is provably bad at arriving at the best candidate. There are a multitude of better voting strategies out there, but those will never be implemented because arriving at the best candidate is not the point.
-
Again, if you have to pay your taxes (all of them) once a year at the polling place, then more people would be likely to vote.
-
Again, if you have to pay your taxes (all of them) once a year at the polling place, then more people would be likely to vote.
You say that like it's a good thing.