POLL: None of the Above
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
it would, however, keep more people who shouldn't vote from voting. I have actually left ballots portions of a ballot blank before when I don't know anything about the candidates. I just feel it's irresponsible to vote for anyone you know nothing about.
I'm more interested in it as a way for the electorate to say they aren't willing to accept the choices we are given.
Then it should read "Unacceptable Candidates" instead of none of the above.
Don't you think the electorate already has and is exercising that options by not voting?
I don't understand your problem with the wording but let me explain why I think NOTA is the better option.
If NOTA wins, the listed candidates are rejected and cannot take the office in question. Today, when people choose to show their displeasure by not voting, even if a majority eschews voting, one of the candidates wins. Plus, you can't really tell if people are choosing not to vote in protest or because they are lazy, or had problems being able to vote or whatever. When they vote NOTA they not only are clearly rejecting the candidates but if enough vote NOTA they can cause new choices to be offered.
My guess is that in our propaganda-driven races most people will, at a minimum, be too frightened that the "wrong candidate" will win to vote NOTA. But if a lot of people do vote NOTA in one election, more may do so in the next. If parties ever worry that NOTA could win, they will be under pressure to find better candidates. In theory.
Another interesting thing that might happen is that we might get higher turnout. Because those people who are feeling left out now have a ballot choice that let's them express how they feel. Note that when we conduct exit polls, we can't pick up reasons why people didn't vote - because exit polls only reach people who did vote.
A final thought. Obama won with 51.1% of the votes in 2012. Turnout was 58.2% (that's the highest number I saw). Doing the math, Obama received the approval of 29.7% of eligible voters - which apparently passes as a "mandate" in our country.
Think about that.
What about "actual" mandates? Take Reagan's 1984 landslide. He won 58.8% of the vote. Turnout was 53.1%. Again doing the math we see Reagan got the approval of 31.2% of eligible voters. Mandate? Really?
Or try George W Bush in 2000. He "won" with 47.9% of the vote and turnout was 54.2%. W was approved by 26.0% of eligible voters.
Note also that turnout is even worse in years when we don't elect a president. So even that state-level incumbent who wins by 30 points still doesn't have majority approval. While actual turnout will vary from race to race, overall turnout for 2014 was just 36.4%
Yeah, yeah, that's a bit off on a tangent - but not much. Having a NOTA option would probably make it even more apparent that we aren't being governed by the people we actually want.
Even if the dismal voting numbers in my post above don't convince you, what harm would there be to offering a NOTA option on the ballot? I can see not being particularly excited by the idea but why are people against it?
isn't this basically why dees nutz is running? it's sort of like writing in mickey mouse: none of the above
I suppose you could make that argument. But NOTA is a cleaner message. You can always smear a protest candidate - and make even those who want to register a protest vote feel unhappy about picking that particular protest vote. But NOTA is neutral.
Think of it this way.... If you are a backroom power selecting a party's candidates, you'd rather have Deez Nuts than NOTA on the ballot. Deez Nuts is not an option most people will take seriously even if they are angry with the choices they are being offered.
isn't this basically what the vast amount of people do every election cycle anyway? by not showing up to vote, are they not saying, "none of the above"?? people don't vote in mass numbers
edit: I do like the idea of having it on the ballot, I'm just not sure people will get motivated in large numbers and drive over there- or get taken by bus over there- to vote that way
edit: I do like the idea of having it on the ballot, I'm just not sure people will get motivated in large numbers and drive over there- or get taken by bus over there- to vote that way
Please read my longer post a couple above this. I addressed this question. In brief, we don't know why people don't vote and even if it is a protest vote it has no effect on who wins or how much of a mandate he can claim.
what? of course we know why people don't vote. and it dang sure has huge effects.
I disagree but not point in arguing it.
Would you support mandatory voting like they have in Australia?
no, absolutely not. the reason people don't vote is: they are dumbed down and brainwashed, minions, peasants. I see it in the folks from mexico: they do not vote. they want us to be a third world country so that we are dumbed down, don't care, don't vote, don't feel worthy enough to vote, just go to work, get your taxes robbed from you, sit down, shut up, don't speak up, don't vote, live in filth in a third world country. that's what they want for us here in America, and it's working. then they can say we voted, when we did not, but they say we came out and voted for Obama, which we did not, or bush, or jeb or Hillary. they even tell us the numbers we voted in, in mass amounts or not, they count the votes. they say we voted. which we did not. we are stupid, rolling around in our own crap in our third world heck. he who counts the votes: determines the winner. that's why we don't vote and we are not expected to vote, so they can take our votes and use them as they see fit, so a "none of the above" would surely be assigned to jeb bush, without anybody's approval, because it's not needed in this tyranny of a third world heck.
If who counts the votes determines the winner, how does not voting change or help fix that?
How about an option to vote against a candidate. Each election cycle I'd like to vote against Branstad, but instead I have to vote for a lame Democrat candidate. That doesn't caption the meaning of my vote.
well, because the powers that be can say: " see, we have ten thousand Hispanics right here in this county, and they always vote dem, they voted for the dem candidate and that's it" then nobody goes and checks the actual votes, because the powers that be said the Hispanics voted and that's it. to question it would make you a fool.
just exactly like what happened with Obama: people just told us that all blacks voted for him. to question it would be racist. people told us some whites voted for him. nobody ever counted the votes. to question anything about 2008, would be racist, and 2012. but prior to that with bush, we had hanging chads. the powers that be learned their lesson with publicly counting votes. so never again shall we get proof of who voted. never again. we shall just be told who voted and how often and in how many numbers and for whom.
I think we do have that system and it's called a recall
I think they kept trying to recall walker in wisconsin
It would reinforce the self-disempowered voter mythical belief that "there are better candidates out there" or "This is the best we can do??!!".
Well, there aren't, and yes, it is. Why? Because these alleged better candidates chose not to run, or were winnowed out by a very thorough gauntlet of a process.
Voters: If you want better candidates, run yourself or draft them. But until you do, here is what you got. Now, pick!
Not all states have either referendum or recall, and there's none at the federal level.
Nor would either of those be a substitute for NOTA.
So your idea of empowerment is to bend over, take it, smile, and shout, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"?
How do you feel about voting for a third party?
I say no but I think they should change the question to "Who do you think would suck the least".
I've voted for 1 or more 3rd party candidates in most elections in the last 2 decades.
Why did you ask?
Yes, at the time of the election, that is my idea, but the voters are TIITB by their own doing by then. We can't wait until, say, November 2016, look at the candidates, and only then say "not good enough. Try again for another 18 months". It's too late then. We need a prez about 2.5 months from then. So, no, the voters cannot say on election day NOTA. You snoozed, you lost, others worked, now pick!
If voters want better/different candidates, they need to work for them in the months/years leading up to the election, as are hundreds and thousands of workers right now for Clinton and Bush and Trump and...and....and....while you and I post on here instead of working for a candidate.
As for your second question, I think people should vote for who they think is the best candidate, Dem, GOP, or other. Each vote sends a message, whether the candidate wins or not.
Similar threads
