vote for none of the above

[Supposn]

I regret my state does not follow Nevada’s example. “None” appears along with all other candidates’ names on the ballots.

By voting for "None", the voters’ are implying a willingness to vote for future candidates who are more amiable to their, (the voters’) political positions. This year’s lot are all unacceptable.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[David]

I regret my state does not follow Nevada’s example. “None” appears along with all other candidates’ names on the ballots.

By voting for "None", the voters’ are implying a willingness to vote for future candidates who are more amiable to their, (the voters’) political positions. This year’s lot are all unacceptable.

Respectfully Supposn

Why bother voting then? Voting for a NotA option is redundant.

 

[Supposn]

Why bother voting then? Voting for a NotA option is redundant.

David, our behavior is too often less than logical.
I personally would make every effort to vote in every election until death if “None” is one of the choices on the ballot.

Otherwise I’ve decided that it is my patriotic duty to refrain from voting whenever all of the candidates are by my determination unacceptable. To do otherwise is to encourage major parties to continue spitting in our faces.
If many others do the same, elected officials would act more responsibly.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[David]

David, our behavior is too often less than logical.
I personally would make every effort to vote in every election until death if “None” is one of the choices on the ballot.

Otherwise I’ve decided that it is my patriotic duty to refrain from voting whenever all of the candidates are by my determination unacceptable. To do otherwise is to encourage major parties to continue spitting in our faces.
If many others do the same, elected officials would act more responsibly.

Respectfully, Supposn

lol No. The smaller the voting pool (whether by voting restrictions or voter apathy) the fewer people politicians need to please and the more they can do as they please. The fatal flaw of democracy is that it's a popularity contest and the fer people who vote the more extreme the effect is on the makeup and actions of our gov't.

The better option is to vote for 3rd parties or write people in, if everyone who didn't vote did this instead the ruling class would actually be threatened. By not voting you only empower the corruption.

 

[Neodoxy]

I agree that voting "none" has its use as it shows a group that's willing to go out and vote while at the same time not voting for anyone. This indicates to politicians that there is a group of potential voters that they could cater to which could assure them votes. At any rate, with the effect each marginal vote has upon the election process, it's pretty much the same thing either way.

 

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by Supposn:
David, our behavior is too often less than logical.
I personally would make every effort to vote in every election until death if “None” is one of the choices on the ballot.

Otherwise I’ve decided that it is my patriotic duty to refrain from voting whenever all of the candidates are by my determination unacceptable. To do otherwise is to encourage major parties to continue spitting in our faces.
If many others do the same, elected officials would act more responsibly.

Respectfully, Supposn
/////////////////////////////////////////

lol No. The smaller the voting pool (whether by voting restrictions or voter apathy) the fewer people politicians need to please and the more they can do as they please. The fatal flaw of democracy is that it's a popularity contest and the fer people who vote the more extreme the effect is on the makeup and actions of our gov't.

The better option is to vote for 3rd parties or write people in, if everyone who didn't vote did this instead the ruling class would actually be threatened. By not voting you only empower the corruption.

////////////////////////////////////////

David, I repeat, I’ve decided that it is my patriotic duty to refrain from voting whenever ALL of the candidates are by my determination unacceptable.

That means there is no acceptable third party.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[David]

Originally Posted by Supposn:
David, I repeat, I’ve decided that it is my patriotic duty to refrain from voting whenever ALL of the candidates are by my determination unacceptable.

That means there is no acceptable third party.

Respectfully, Supposn

Ah, well in that case I agree. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[mogur]

All candidates are beholding to the ones that paid for their campaign. If you happen to stumble across one that did not take any vested money, then you ran across one that didn't win their election. (I would like to be proven wrong, please beat me down.)

It is a contest between those that are funded by your interests versus those that are funded by interests other than yours. This is what the founders wanted. (NOT, I am being facetious.) The best we can hope for is those that are funded by both sides. At least they are sluts for only half of your opponent's agenda.

 

[Road Warrior]

Otherwise I’ve decided that it is my patriotic duty to refrain from voting whenever all of the candidates are by my determination unacceptable. To do otherwise is to encourage major parties to continue spitting in our faces.

If many others do the same, elected officials would act more responsibly.

I wouldn't count on it.

Although I do think a "None of the above" option allows voters to show their disgust, elections are won just companies make succeed in business: cut costs and increase profits.

Like the 2010 mid-term election, elections can be won simply because less people for the opposition. Or, as in this case, "none of the above". With the power of negative campaigning, a politician can win simply by encouraging more people to be disgusted with the opposing candidate. The 2012 election might be won by Romney if too many Democrats stay home out of disgust with Obama over GITMO, Afghanistan and the fact he hasn't provided every low income American with "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage".

 

[El VetoVoter]

None of the above, or NOTA (that's my doggie's name) is a standard of Libertarian political philosophy. But, the big monopoly parties absolutely abhor any such freedom.

I (we actually) feel your angst at having no real alternatives, and yet being enticed to vote for or against something or somebody. It is an unreal experience for many people to be required to choose between options that are not worthy of choosing.

Isn't there a better option? How can choosing between an ogre and a witch be the best choices available? How can it be that "the only nice person in the race" is unelectable?

Having looked at all of that, and having been a political activist for the LIBERTARIAN cause, and having won and lost many political battles as such, I have concluded that electoral politics is a lost cause.

Even when we vote for somebody who seems to embody our hopes and dreams, the reality of their rule is likely to be far different than our hopes and dreams when we elected them.

I would hope that you will choose to put your emotional and intellectual efforts into finding ways to actually improve society and the world, rather than being overly intent on the failures of electoral politics.

It is possible to make some changes for the better. It is not possible to force everybody to be good. Government doesn't work.

 

[Supposn]

El Veto-Voter, this is a transcript of my letter tp Chris Matthews:

Mr. Matthews, regarding your CNBC "Hardball program of November 17th, 2016: You questioned if voters such as I care regarding how our “choice of whom to vote for affects the outcome”?* I can only reply on my own behalf. I had prior to that broadcast date been corresponding with one of my children about this topic. This is a copy of my latest E-mail to him.

I’m a firm proponent of the trade policy as described within the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”. My pen-name is Supposn and I participate in many internet discussion forums.

Respectfully, (i.e. Supposn)
///////////////////////////////

Robert, of course we, (similar to all others) believe that if the world’s population were to achieve our intelligence and even a minimal amount of the truth, (as we of course know it to be), they would certainly agree with us. The entire world would then be your poppa’s species of populists.

Regarding Jill Stein, I do not particularly share many her views and priorities; she’s unelectable and thus cannot do our nation any harm.
I voted for the Green Party’s presidential candidate because she’s diametrically opposed to the right side of USA’s political spectrum which policies I believe has and continues to do our nation economic harm.

I’m not opposed to compromise and the concept of half loafs being preferable to no loafs of bread, but compromise is unjustified if it require the acceptance of what’s entirely unacceptable.
President Bill Clinton boasts of his “triangulation” tactical compromises; I cannot recall of any Clinton’s beneficial economic policy change that has been able to survive Republicans’ explicit reversal efforts enacted by their administrations that immediately followed. I attribute those consequences to accepting the unacceptable.

If populist voters such as myself would deny their votes to overly compromising Democratic candidates, the party would be more amiable to us populists. I admire the tactics of the Tea Party and their allies. The Republicans accommodate further right wing view-points or endure the successful consequences of Tea Party retribution when the next primary and general elections are conducted.

I will not vote for overly compromising Democratic Party candidates so that they can serve as “seat keepers” until some inevitable change of majority party eventually occurs.

As a New Jersey populist voter, I wished to deny Hillary Clinton a greater plurality of New Jersey’s votes. I would have regretted Trump receiving New Jersey’s electoral college votes but It’s preferable to accept that risk rather than to meekly accept the inevitability of the unacceptable.

Love, Poppa

 

[Supposn]

Ummm..... Whether you check a box that says NONE, skip certain items on the ballot, or just stay home altogether, there is absolutely NO difference between the three - hello?!

It would be a waste of ink to have superfluous lines on ballots when they have zero effect on who gets elected, and who doesn't.

Aufgeblassen, I’ve somewhat reconsidered and modified my conclusions and the tactics that I advocated prior to my 4:03 AM, November 22, 2016 post; but I remain advocating my state's following Nevada’s example. Within Nevada the choice of “none” appears among the lists of candidates for each office being voted upon in Nevada’s elections for those government offices.
I would not be a proponent of such a change if I did not believe that its consequences would be of difference and that difference would be beneficial to my state and my nation.

If you wish, we could discuss the differences and their consequences in greater detail that what’s inferred within that 4:03 post.
Refer to the 4:03 AM, November 22, 2016 post.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[David]

I'm going to have to agree with Supposn here. While not voting at all renders you irrelevant to the powers that be, a 'none of the above vote' allows you to avoid voting if nobody appeals to you while still registering your opinion. A significant numbers of voters choosing such an option, while not affecting the makeup of the government (spoiler effect aside), sends a clear message that there needs to be political reform withing the parties. Had such an option been present this election, I'd wager it would have beat out both Clinton and Trump and we'd already be seeing major institutional changes (no more superdelegates, limited open primaries, more empathist of ethics before letting anyone on the ballot, etc.) within the parties right now. I suspect we WILL see some changes regardless but they'll be mere shadows of what would happen if the parties' leaderships had a fuller understanding of how discontented voters are with the system.

 

[Supposn]

Not really! Such a "vote" is voting neutral, so it is essentially a non-vote, or could simply be interpreted that you like all candidates equally, and can't decide! :rolleye:

It could mean you absolutely LOVE all candidates a whole bunch equally, or you HATE all candidates equally; it is totally unknown. Again, a totally useless waste of ink on the ballot.

So what if "none of the above" got a huge vote and actually candidates got low numbers. The candidate with the highest low numbers still wins (except for the Presidency), and both the winner and the losers will feel no different, nor act no different. Winner gets the position.

Aufgeblassen, to your mind and I suppose to comparatively few others, both non-voters or those voting for “none” may be indicating they “absolutely LOVE all candidates a whole bunch, [i.e. all of the] … candidates equally”; but I don’t believe that party leaders generally consider it as you do.

Because a vote for “none” would not affect the outcome of an election does not mean that such an alternative on the ballot of candidate names would not affect political party leaders preferences and/or their party’s primaries and/or the general elections outcomes. Those are not politically neutral affects.

You claim to be a pragmatist but your concepts regarding this matter are not realistic.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[David]

Aufgeblassen, to your mind and I suppose to comparatively few others, both non-voters or those voting for “none” may be indicating they “absolutely LOVE all candidates a whole bunch, [i.e. all of the] … candidates equally”; but I don’t believe that party leaders generally consider it as you do.

Because a vote for “none” would not affect the outcome of an election does not mean that such an alternative on the ballot of candidate names would not affect political party leaders preferences and/or their party’s primaries and/or the general elections outcomes. Those are not politically neutral affects.

You claim to be a pragmatist but your concepts regarding this matter are not realistic.

Respectfully, Supposn

He's passive aggressively trolling you.

 

[El VetoVoter]

Ummm..... Whether you check a box that says NONE, skip certain items on the ballot, or just stay home altogether, there is absolutely NO difference between the three - hello?!

It would be a waste of ink to have superfluous lines on ballots when they have zero effect on who gets elected, and who doesn't.

Yes... But, aren't all of the lines on the ballot superfluous (or super-floss)?

Isn't the whole purpose of electoral politics to waste ink, waste time, waste money, create a huge election bureaucracy, and convince the gullible that electing their masters makes them free?

The only way to have any freedom is to take it. My way is to stay above the fray.

 

[tecoyah]

Yes... But, aren't all of the lines on the ballot superfluous (or super-floss)?

Isn't the whole purpose of electoral politics to waste ink, waste time, waste money, create a huge election bureaucracy, and convince the gullible that electing their masters makes them free?

The only way to have any freedom is to take it. My way is to stay above the fray.

No....the purpose is to allow the citizenry to create a Government which reflects a majority view of the society it wishes to become. By not stating your view you become irrelevant to the process and the resulting society.

This is totally fine with me as it simply fits the concept of freedom I hope for and the disdain for it pretty much says you do not belong in it in the first place.

 

[El VetoVoter]

NOTA -- None Of The Above -- None of Those Alternatives

NOTA could be a viable alternative if, and only if, it included the logical outcome that any office receiving a plurality of NOTA votes would be unfilled, unfunded, and have its bureaucracy disbanded for the term.

Then voters would have a real method of showing their disgust, demanding quality candidates, eliminating unpopular and/or worthless offices, and really controlling government.

The fact that no political jurisdiction would think of allowing such power to the voters is further evidence that the system is rigged, voting doesn't matter, and democracy doesn't work.

 

[David]

NOTA -- None Of The Above -- None of Those Alternatives

NOTA could be a viable alternative if, and only if, it included the logical outcome that any office receiving a plurality of NOTA votes would be unfilled, unfunded, and have its bureaucracy disbanded for the term.

Then voters would have a real method of showing their disgust, demanding quality candidates, eliminating unpopular and/or worthless offices, and really controlling government.

The fact that no political jurisdiction would think of allowing such power to the voters is further evidence that the system is rigged, voting doesn't matter, and democracy doesn't work.

Finally, something from you I can agree with. This combined with preferential voting would solve a lot of problems.

 

[El VetoVoter]

Finally, something from you I can agree with. This combined with preferential voting would solve a lot of problems.

It could. Too bad it won't. There is no way that any government jurisdiction would allow such far-reaching control to the sheeple.

I have friends who champion those policies, and I used to do so myself.

But it has become obvious that "of the people, by the people, for the people..." is a slogan without reason. It is designed to be believed by faith, because there is no evidence that it ever existed (and in those rare cases that it may have reared its head, it was immediately beheaded by the powers that be).

And what, Auggie, would be ridiculous about leaving a government position unfilled and unfunded if it were inept enough to not get a majority of voters supporting it? You talk as if you support government waste, huge bureacracies, and all of the things that traditional conservatives abhor.

Consider the economics if the voters decided to cut 2/3 of the elected positions. Government would be forced to become leaner and more efficient. And politicians would be forced to provide some sort of excuse for their existence, their budgets, and their programs. They wouldn't be able to just run on the premise that they aren't as bad as the alternative.

So, I refuse to vote for "less bad". If voting against an office would unfund it, then I'd have to re-think being a Veto-Voter. Until that happens, I am happy to "just say no" when it comes to enabling political corruption and force.