Only if it has teeth. If it leaves the incumbent in (by splitting the vote) it’s a bad thing. Anything less than 50%+1 should cause a new election. I mean more than what that sounds like. I’m talking 50%+1 of all registered voters, not just those that show up. NOTA doesn’t need to be a choice in that case… it’s the default.
Well, maybe. Doesn’t hurt.
But what we really need is Approval Voting. Allow each citizen to vote for every candidate they deem acceptable.
This fixes a number of things wrong with our current system. But most importantly it destroys the “spoiler effect” which means we are always stuck with choosing between Republican or Democrat. We can actually vote for third parties (a stronger signal than “None of the above”) without spoiling our own vote and electing “the other guy”.
This would also end the divisive “play the extremes against the middle” nature of our current political system, and encourage real coalition building that embraces 60% – 80% of the US population. Marxists like Obama would never have a chance in that environment.
The real enemy of the American electorate isn’t the Republican or Democratic Parties. It’s the very system we use of plurality voting. It is plurality voting that cements the Parties as masters of our political system. Approval voting would break their control over politics overnight.
Combine the two.
Combining the two is almost automatic, no? If you don’t vote approval for any candidate, then you’ve cast your vote for “None of the Above”, and that should show up in the percentages for every candidate.
The only thing left would be to create a procedure for when none of the candidates get more than 50% approval.
Not exactly.
Simply not voting would have no effect on outcome of the election. The other voters would decide who wins.
Having “None of the above” on the ballot could force a new election if “None of the above” was the winner (even if less than 50%).
To clarify. If everyone gets less than 50%+1 of all registered voters; suppose five candidates all get somewhere in the 40% to 50% range, one ahead of the others. They have to do it all over. Nobody has won. That’s combining the two procedures.
Not a new election… an empty position. If no-one can win majority approval, then the position obviously shouldn’t exist.
Such a policy would be more effective at maintaining small government than anything that has ever been tried before.
It is as futile as saying you want to steer a sailboat directly in a direction the wind isn’t blowing.
There is no real alternative. You’ve got to tack and jibe.
Can we have a “None of the above – leave the office vacant upon the expiration of the incumbent’s term” option? Then it would stay vacant until the next election for that office. Surely there are some offices that could stay empty for years with no harm – and maybe an empty seat would be improvement in some (many?) situations.
Rand, I’ve been saying this for years, except I would take it one step further. If NOTA won a particular election, we would have a pool of people who put their names into the hat. You would have to meet the consitutional requirements for that particular office….i.e. for a congress person, at least age 25, have been a citizen for least 7 years, etc. Once everyone is in the pool, we have a lottery like drawing for that electon. Put it on pay-per-view with the proceeds going to pay down the national debt. The only people not eligible for any pool are lawyers and convicted felons (but I repeat myself).
If you win the drawing you serve your term, but if you decide it’s a pretty good gig and you run for relection in two years, you will be running against NOTA. We would get new people and new ideas in the system and start thinning out the suffocating stranglehold of the legal class on the system.
Would you get better, more honest people? Maybe yes maybe no, but you would get different people. Given the current bunch of nimrods up there, it’s hard to see how we could do worse.
I think this is more in line with most of the Founder’s thoughts: You get elected, several a couple of terms and then go back home to be a butcher, baker, mom, teacher, etc.
Yep. That’s a brilliant idea. Random chance. What if, for starters, the person doesn’t want to serve? Shall we force them? Can you say “indentured servitude?”
Then there’s the excellent chance the random pick will be incompetent, criminal, or (worse yet) Barney Frank. Or Paul Ryan (depending on your political persuasion). That would be a great pick; having a representative who stands for political concepts diametrically opposed to yours. Now that’s what I call representation!
Oy.
What’s wrong with the idea of allowing various citizens to present themselves to the public, along with their positions, and allowing the voters to select one? What’s that? You don’t like the candidates? Then get up off your sorry bottom and run for office.
Or, at least, join a local party group and undermine from within. Of course, that’s going to take a lot of time & effort, and might eat into your paintball schedule, summer trip, or cost you those 50-yard line tickets for your favorite football team.
Nope; it’s so much easier just to magically create a system which only requires you to punch a hole, or press a button.
Casey…not sure I get your point, if you don’t want to enter the NOTA pool for a given office, then don’t…no one would force you to put your name in the hat… how the heck is that “indentured sevitude?” You could put restrictions to keep lawyers, former officer holders, felons, criminals or mental patients from entering.
I’m age 61 and not into paintball and can’t afford 50 yard line tickets for either college or pro games. You’ve never met my bottom so please don’t call it sorry.
My whole point was to get new blood, new ideas into the system to break up the death grip the two party system has on this Republic.
Not sure if you live on either coast, but folks in flyover country (I live in the Florida panhandle) have become very very angry and frustrated with our current politcal system. It doesn’t seem to matter which party is in power, we the people seem to always get the shaft.
There is a second revolution brewing out her in the hinterlands. Hopefully, it will be along the lines of the Czechoslovakian velvet revolution… but maybe not. Peace out.
Sorry. I was a bit worked up there. My main point was far too many people don’t take the time to join the political process. I was guessing when I presented reasons why they don’t.
My original point stands: join your local party (whichever you prefer). Knock on doors, make phone calls, stuff mail boxes; everything you can to aid the cause. If there’s an especially appealing candidate, join their staff. Become part of the process instead of waiting for a miracle.
I’ll bet money most of the people you refer to as frustrated down there haven’t done much besides vote. Look at the Tea Parties; they joined local groups, worked their way the ladder of city, county, and state, and made a measurable difference. That didn’t happen by itself.
“None of the Above” sounds good, but if that option won, none of the politicians defeated by NOTA should be allowed to run again for the office.
Firing squad if you lose? That has some possibilities.
It should be the “Tar and Feather” option.
No, that would be a check-box next to the incumbent’s name.
We should have the Thunderdome option. Two men, one man leaves or spin the wheel.
How about instead acknowledging that it is a conflict of interest for lawyers to make laws, and therefore make admission to the Bar a disqualification for running for political office?
Second!
How about we make all current office holders and people in a position of public trust ineligible to run for office. Then everyone leaves office at the end of their term but can run again after staying home until another election at least.
The fact that there isn’t a “none of the above” – which means no-one gets the job – is due to the historic nature of democracy. “Hahaha!! You’ve gotta choose one of us!!!”
Foolishness. All of this discontent about candidates rises directly from the fact that 99% of the citizens of this country do little more than punch holes in a piece of cardboard every other years. How many even contribute to campaigns? How fewer join the local organization and knock on doors, stuff envelopes, or come out on election day to help people get to the polls?
The ugly truth is that most of us want to be handed a perfect candidate without any effort or cost on our part, just so we can punch that little hole, content that we’ve done our civic duty.
If you study the voting theory and still come away with the conclusion that the system is never at fault ..
Actually, if every ballot used range voting you would get the effect you wanted and much more. Range voting is mathematically much more sound that any of the systems being used in US today, including IRV
{yawn} another “miracle” geek. If we execute this plan, or pass this law, things will be so much better! Proggies think that way as well.
If nothing else, that exercise in sterility you linked to doesn’t even mention issues like gerrymandering, which has far more to do with “safe seats” than what they describe.
So who represents “None of the Above” at the debates? Clint Eastwood and an empty chair?
Only if it has teeth. If it leaves the incumbent in (by splitting the vote) it’s a bad thing. Anything less than 50%+1 should cause a new election. I mean more than what that sounds like. I’m talking 50%+1 of all registered voters, not just those that show up. NOTA doesn’t need to be a choice in that case… it’s the default.
Well, maybe. Doesn’t hurt.
But what we really need is Approval Voting. Allow each citizen to vote for every candidate they deem acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
This fixes a number of things wrong with our current system. But most importantly it destroys the “spoiler effect” which means we are always stuck with choosing between Republican or Democrat. We can actually vote for third parties (a stronger signal than “None of the above”) without spoiling our own vote and electing “the other guy”.
This would also end the divisive “play the extremes against the middle” nature of our current political system, and encourage real coalition building that embraces 60% – 80% of the US population. Marxists like Obama would never have a chance in that environment.
The real enemy of the American electorate isn’t the Republican or Democratic Parties. It’s the very system we use of plurality voting. It is plurality voting that cements the Parties as masters of our political system. Approval voting would break their control over politics overnight.
Combine the two.
Combining the two is almost automatic, no? If you don’t vote approval for any candidate, then you’ve cast your vote for “None of the Above”, and that should show up in the percentages for every candidate.
The only thing left would be to create a procedure for when none of the candidates get more than 50% approval.
Not exactly.
Simply not voting would have no effect on outcome of the election. The other voters would decide who wins.
Having “None of the above” on the ballot could force a new election if “None of the above” was the winner (even if less than 50%).
To clarify. If everyone gets less than 50%+1 of all registered voters; suppose five candidates all get somewhere in the 40% to 50% range, one ahead of the others. They have to do it all over. Nobody has won. That’s combining the two procedures.
Not a new election… an empty position. If no-one can win majority approval, then the position obviously shouldn’t exist.
Such a policy would be more effective at maintaining small government than anything that has ever been tried before.
It is as futile as saying you want to steer a sailboat directly in a direction the wind isn’t blowing.
There is no real alternative. You’ve got to tack and jibe.
Can we have a “None of the above – leave the office vacant upon the expiration of the incumbent’s term” option? Then it would stay vacant until the next election for that office. Surely there are some offices that could stay empty for years with no harm – and maybe an empty seat would be improvement in some (many?) situations.
Rand, I’ve been saying this for years, except I would take it one step further. If NOTA won a particular election, we would have a pool of people who put their names into the hat. You would have to meet the consitutional requirements for that particular office….i.e. for a congress person, at least age 25, have been a citizen for least 7 years, etc. Once everyone is in the pool, we have a lottery like drawing for that electon. Put it on pay-per-view with the proceeds going to pay down the national debt. The only people not eligible for any pool are lawyers and convicted felons (but I repeat myself).
If you win the drawing you serve your term, but if you decide it’s a pretty good gig and you run for relection in two years, you will be running against NOTA. We would get new people and new ideas in the system and start thinning out the suffocating stranglehold of the legal class on the system.
Would you get better, more honest people? Maybe yes maybe no, but you would get different people. Given the current bunch of nimrods up there, it’s hard to see how we could do worse.
I think this is more in line with most of the Founder’s thoughts: You get elected, several a couple of terms and then go back home to be a butcher, baker, mom, teacher, etc.
Yep. That’s a brilliant idea. Random chance. What if, for starters, the person doesn’t want to serve? Shall we force them? Can you say “indentured servitude?”
Then there’s the excellent chance the random pick will be incompetent, criminal, or (worse yet) Barney Frank. Or Paul Ryan (depending on your political persuasion). That would be a great pick; having a representative who stands for political concepts diametrically opposed to yours. Now that’s what I call representation!
Oy.
What’s wrong with the idea of allowing various citizens to present themselves to the public, along with their positions, and allowing the voters to select one? What’s that? You don’t like the candidates? Then get up off your sorry bottom and run for office.
Or, at least, join a local party group and undermine from within. Of course, that’s going to take a lot of time & effort, and might eat into your paintball schedule, summer trip, or cost you those 50-yard line tickets for your favorite football team.
Nope; it’s so much easier just to magically create a system which only requires you to punch a hole, or press a button.
Casey…not sure I get your point, if you don’t want to enter the NOTA pool for a given office, then don’t…no one would force you to put your name in the hat… how the heck is that “indentured sevitude?” You could put restrictions to keep lawyers, former officer holders, felons, criminals or mental patients from entering.
I’m age 61 and not into paintball and can’t afford 50 yard line tickets for either college or pro games. You’ve never met my bottom so please don’t call it sorry.
My whole point was to get new blood, new ideas into the system to break up the death grip the two party system has on this Republic.
Not sure if you live on either coast, but folks in flyover country (I live in the Florida panhandle) have become very very angry and frustrated with our current politcal system. It doesn’t seem to matter which party is in power, we the people seem to always get the shaft.
There is a second revolution brewing out her in the hinterlands. Hopefully, it will be along the lines of the Czechoslovakian velvet revolution… but maybe not. Peace out.
Sorry. I was a bit worked up there. My main point was far too many people don’t take the time to join the political process. I was guessing when I presented reasons why they don’t.
My original point stands: join your local party (whichever you prefer). Knock on doors, make phone calls, stuff mail boxes; everything you can to aid the cause. If there’s an especially appealing candidate, join their staff. Become part of the process instead of waiting for a miracle.
I’ll bet money most of the people you refer to as frustrated down there haven’t done much besides vote. Look at the Tea Parties; they joined local groups, worked their way the ladder of city, county, and state, and made a measurable difference. That didn’t happen by itself.
“None of the Above” sounds good, but if that option won, none of the politicians defeated by NOTA should be allowed to run again for the office.
Firing squad if you lose? That has some possibilities.
It should be the “Tar and Feather” option.
No, that would be a check-box next to the incumbent’s name.
We should have the Thunderdome option. Two men, one man leaves or spin the wheel.
How about instead acknowledging that it is a conflict of interest for lawyers to make laws, and therefore make admission to the Bar a disqualification for running for political office?
Second!
How about we make all current office holders and people in a position of public trust ineligible to run for office. Then everyone leaves office at the end of their term but can run again after staying home until another election at least.
The fact that there isn’t a “none of the above” – which means no-one gets the job – is due to the historic nature of democracy. “Hahaha!! You’ve gotta choose one of us!!!”
Foolishness. All of this discontent about candidates rises directly from the fact that 99% of the citizens of this country do little more than punch holes in a piece of cardboard every other years. How many even contribute to campaigns? How fewer join the local organization and knock on doors, stuff envelopes, or come out on election day to help people get to the polls?
The ugly truth is that most of us want to be handed a perfect candidate without any effort or cost on our part, just so we can punch that little hole, content that we’ve done our civic duty.
The fault lies not in the system, but the voters.
The fault lies not in the system, but the voters.
Actually it can be demonstrated that its exactly the other way around.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-winner_voting_system#Comparison_of_single-member_district_election_methods
Actually thats a better table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29
If you study the voting theory and still come away with the conclusion that the system is never at fault ..
Actually, if every ballot used range voting you would get the effect you wanted and much more. Range voting is mathematically much more sound that any of the systems being used in US today, including IRV
{yawn} another “miracle” geek. If we execute this plan, or pass this law, things will be so much better! Proggies think that way as well.
If nothing else, that exercise in sterility you linked to doesn’t even mention issues like gerrymandering, which has far more to do with “safe seats” than what they describe.
So who represents “None of the Above” at the debates? Clint Eastwood and an empty chair?