Would you vote for "None of The Above?"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by FrankBlack, Jul 18, 2007.

  1. FrankBlack macrumors 6502

    FrankBlack

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Location:
    Looking for Lucy Butler
    #1
    If you're like most voting citizens today, you're probably more than a little fed up with the choices you have as a voter. Have you ever said, 'I'm voting for Joe smith, because I dislike him less than I dislike Sally smith". (fill in John and sally smith with your own candidates, whom you can't stand.)

    Well, leave it to some enterprising folks in Massachusetts to propose a "solution" of sorts. Give voters another choice, called "None of the Above".

    If this passes, a None of the above selection will be a choice on all state elections. If "None of the Above" wins, a new election, with new candidates, will be mandatory.

    Here is Link to a news story about it.

    Here is Link to the website of the non-partisans who are supporting this.

    Fun fact: In Massachusetts, any citizen of the commonwealth may file legislation. The office of the secretary of state even has a free brochure on it, detailing the procedure. Your state senator, or representative, must file the bill on your behalf. This is not a constitutional right, but rather, a right of tradition, dating back to colonial times. It's somewhat rare, but sometimes, a private citizen's bill will actually make through the legislative process and be signed into law. Rare, but it does happen.

    May you live in interesting times. I'd say these times qualify.

    Thoughts and opinions?
     
  2. Roger1 macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #2
    Would this apply to presidential elections? Does Michigan have a law like this?? :D
     
  3. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #3
    Nah, for me it comes down to the lesser of two or more evils. :p
     
  4. szark macrumors 68030

    szark

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Arid-Zone-A
    #4
    Someone's been watching Brewster's Millions... :p

    I think it's an interesting idea, but how many times will they repeat the election? If the first election fails, and the mandatory second election fails, and the mandatory third election fails... how far can you go without major disruption of government?
     
  5. jng macrumors 65816

    jng

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    #5
    Answer:
    I would vote none of the above. I'm not excited about any '08 candidate to be quite honest.

    I also prefer the multi party system, having seen it in action and having seen the terrible state of affairs our govt is currently in.
     
  6. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #6
    That's an interesting question, but just imagine what kind of disruption the first None of the Above election will create. Frankly, I can't wait for it to happen.
     
  7. wonga1127 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    Wishing for a magic bus.
    #7
    Every state in the Union should make it easy and known to file legistation.

    And Presidential Elections shouldn't be a beauty or wallet contest. The parties or the federal government should fund the campaigns equally and make it so the candidates can't use private funds.

    This none of the above thing sounds great.
     
  8. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #8
    Bad Idea

    No, it sounds dangerous. It seems like a de facto vote for the neocons (probably their idea). It takes a certain amount of intelligence to decide you do not like either candidate. Neocons do not care. For crissake look what they watch; Hannanity, O'Reily, FOX, Ollie Friggin North.....Do you really think the right cannot find some brainless parrot to belch-forth their meager platform? Moderates and Liberals are probably the ones most likely to use this. It is a good way to divide their vote. They have been using the divide and conquer strategy with great success (are you listening, Ralph?).
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    Actually I was watching MSNBC earlier, and that's exactly who Republicans were choosing. A majority chose "none of the above". Democrats and moderates weren't real happy about the other candidates either, but seemed to lean more towards "any of the above" Democrats.

    I don't really like anybody either, I just really don't want another 4-8 years of this, and I have a feeling most Americans feel the same way.
     
  10. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #10
    Not enough people would vote that way. That being the case - Doesn't that essentially just make your vote invalid? Sure that would make a point but not a very good one.
    At least when voting for the lesser of two ore more twunts your vote stands a better chance of not letting in who you think is the bigger twunt(s).
     
  11. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #11
    I love the idea. ...This way, I wouldn't have to vote for myself! :D

    Seriously, our choices for president are pathetic, and I refuse to vote for someone just because "they are the lesser of two evils." If I don't think you're competent enough to run our country, you're not getting my vote, end of story.
     
  12. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #12
    It’s something I’d really like to see put on voting forms. Generally, none of the candidates or their policies appeal to me but at the same time I feel it’s important to use your right to vote.

    A big issue, certainly here in the UK, is that certain groups like the British National Party have been gaining ground in recent years as people use them as a protest vote – thinking that these parties aren’t going to get enough votes to win so no harm’s being done by voting for them in protest, but it makes it appear that their extremist and racist politics have more support than they probably do. I think giving people a way to exercise a protest vote without voting for a specific (and potentially dodgy) party would be a positive move, and potentially even encourage disillusioned voters to the ballot box.
     
  13. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #13
    That's because conservatives are holding out for Thompson and Gingrich to decide whether or not to run.
     
  14. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #14
    SMM, it's time for you to spin this.:D

    Perhaps in the Presidential elections, "abstain" could be an option. But for the automatic association that a lot of people make between the word "abstain" and the idea of no sex, it could provide a more effective method of alerting the victor that there is no mandate, that the win was not due to preference for his policies but dislike for his opponent's policies.
     
  15. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #15
    Tom Cruise as a write-in ... because I'd probably feel safer with a clown at the wheel.
     
  16. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #16
    Not all of us (conservatives) are waiting on either or both of those guys to jump in. But yeah, I do think that's part of the reason that many conservatives aren't ready to commit to a candidate yet.

    As bad as the situation seems right now, I can't imagine voting for "None of the above". I respect folks who do that, or who vote for third-party candidates who don't really stand a chance of winning, if they're being true to their principles by doing so. For me personally, though, it would feel like throwing my vote away.
     
  17. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #17
    What about two-party candidates who have no chance of winning? Is voting for them throwing your vote away? I had no chance of winning my election. Between the bad situation that the GOP was in last year, my complete lack of support from the state/county parties, and my running in a major Democratic stronghold, it would have taken a miracle along the lines of Doug Flutie taking down Miami for me to even sniff the chance of victory. I don't think the people that voted for me threw their votes away, do you?
     
  18. steamboat26 macrumors 65816

    steamboat26

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Location:
    Arlington VA
    #18
    So basically the "none of the above" option gives people the illusion that they have done their civic duty by voting, but since they didn't actually vote for anybody, nothing happened :confused:
    Seems like a waste of time...
     
  19. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #19
    What it does do is give voters the chance to express their dissatisfaction with the candidates and/or polices on offer. If I’m in that position I’d rather select ‘none of the above’ than stay at home and not bother.
     
  20. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #20
    The idea of "None of the above" (NOTA) has been around for a long time. Some add that if the total of NOTA is greater than either candidate, that candidate can never again run for public office.

    Tied to this is the idea that if NOTA is greater than the two candidates, the office remain vacant until the next regularly-scheduled election.

    Sounds good to me!

    :D, 'Rat
     
  21. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    Not true. Thompson came in 3rd at 19%, behind Rudy at 21%, and NOTA at the top with 23%. You don't even want to know Newt's numbers.

    I used to feel that way until Bush in 2004. I'd rather vote for a dead puppy. Insert Kerry joke here.

    In 2006 I voted all Dems for the first time, even though I don't like most of them.
     
  22. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #22
    true and agreed.


    p.s.

    [​IMG]

    (sorry, it seemed a silly yet suitable place to post this)
    :eek:
     
  23. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #23
    Dumb as a brick Thompson? The same Thompson who said that he never really wanted to be President, but wants to do things only a President can do?

    Haha. You're too funny, swarm.
     
  24. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #24
    What's so dumb about that? The POTUS wields significant power on the world stage. A good man in that office can make changes that will be hailed as good by all, even in the long term (this happens very rarely, but still). I think many people believe that they have ideas that could in various crises, and have that desire with the purest hearts, intenting only good. But, the POTUS also has to deal with an increadible amount of crap. The nightmare of dealing with partisan politics has hampered every president since that Washington fellow. Who would really want that job unless they felt they could overcome the obstacles?

    Thompson wants to help in the way he believes best, but doesn't relish the crap that goes with it. What's so dumb about that?

    Note: I'm not sure how I feel about him - I probably won't until we're up on the primaries
     
  25. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    nbs2, some of the before and after photos of presidents show the effects of the stress of four or eight years in the job. Sometimes it's age, of course, but sometimes it's stress.

    I think a good example is Clinton. What I find interesting is the change for the better from 2001 to more recent photos. No stress, now; plenty of money and freedom to do whatever suits him however he wishes to do it. He showed aging during his tenure, and now looks "back to normal".

    Way too much stress in that job.

    I've sometimes thought we need a triumvirate: One for domestic affairs, one for foreign affairs, and one for social stuff like meeting with farmers or kids or chamber of commerce types.

    'Rat
     

Share This Page