should democracy allow negative voting?

[sweetheart]

I realized that if Dennis Kucinich does not win the nomination, i will no longer have anyone to vote FOR... and all subsequent voting in this election is tactical and for my own heart, dishonest... as i will not really be voting for someone, but against the BFEE.

Wouldn't it be better rather to simply allow me to use my vote to say "NOT bush". Then i would cancel out a "bush" vote. That is the truth about my voting in this election... too bad that our "free democratic choice" does not have it on the ballot.

That is why i say in this thread, does it not make sense, to bring back the non-voting public to the polls, to introduce "NOT" votes.

Does this sound like a good idea to you?

[wuushew]

1. California style democracy?

Not really a vote for Arnold just a vote against Davis?

[sweetheart]

5. i dunno about that recall thingie

That all sounds like a perversion when we can't just have regularly scheduled elections... it sounds like plato's description of the classic failure in populist democracy.. instant elections at the drop of a hat... the whole thing reflects badly on all americans... as if davis was recalled, surely a much larger signature petition already exists to recall the BFEE.

Every person i've met in europe recently has brought up this arnold thing as a not-so-subtle dig that american democracy has truly become an ugly joke.

I try to stay positive suggesting that arnold represents a socially liberal change in republicanism that opposes bush on most areas where i REALLY HATE REPUBLICANS: abortion, womens rights, equality, and drugs... but he really stands for nothing that gropatologist... what he stands for is the degredation of women... who should not be in public office. THe law is right. Austrians should not be able to become president.

[Rainbowreflect]

2. Interesting idea.

My question is, what happens when no one votes for anyone, only against someone?

[fob]

4. If NOT wins, then the office should remain unfilled until the next

scheduled election.

[sweetheart]

6. that would be something to see, eh?

The tally should show the total votes for, and the total votes NOT. The latter is then subtracted from the former. Clearly, less than zero votes is not a winner, and the closer to zero is not a winner either if all negative.

If the vote is negative in the final tally, perhaps it should indicate a referendum on whether that office should exist... sort of a no-confidence vote on that area of the constitution, state or federal.

Clearly proportional representation is an improvement, but i would still add the not vote... as i really hate politics, truth be told, and have only opened my big gob because of criminal horrors and the patent aphorisms of that guy who said "good people who stay quiet in the face of horrible criminal abuse.. are not good people.".. (bad paraphrase)...

[pbeal]

3. Our election system is old and messed up

With a country as large and diverse as the United States the winner take all system just doesnt work. It will eventually bite us in the ass again just like it did in the 1860s

[moondust]

7. I'm for it.

Always have been. It removes the arrogant assumption that X voters voted for some dirtbag when they were actually voting against an even worse dirtbag.

[Drifter]

8. I've always wondered about that ...

My political awakening came in the form of being Anti-Republican. I'm not sure who I want to be President but I know I don't want <insert-Republican-running>.

I would be for it.

Cheers
Drifter

[Tansy_Gold]

9. "None of the above"

My husband came up with this solution 30 years ago. Unfortunately, I've never seen it implemented --

after the list of candidates for any given office, whether local, state, or national, there would be a final option: "None of the above." In the event NOTA receives the most votes (50% + 1), the incumbent would remain in office until another election is held in which none of the original candidates can run.

in conjunction with the NOTA option, all campaigning would be limited to ten weeks prior to the election. Incumbents could not campaign at public expense nor raise funds in connection with "official" duties. In the (p)resident goes on a fund-raising tour, the costs must be allocated and reported to the appropriate elections commissions, whether state or federal.

of course, none of the above will ever happen. . . . .

[pmbryant]

10. Incumbent stays in office?

In principle, I like the 'none of the above' option, but to allow the incumbent to remain in office if NOTA wins seems a fatal flaw. There has got to be a better way to implement NOTA than that, I hope.

I also don't like the idea of mandatory, short campaigns. I prefer much longer campaigns to allow people to get to know the candidates better. The Arnold phenomenon is an example of how short campaigns can be perverted by the celebrity factor. No other candidates have time to establish themselves.

:-(

--Peter

[Ladyhawk]

13. Perhaps we could halve the term before the next election?

That would give new candidates time to start their bid.

Also, there should be manacles placed on the administration that was voted out...suggestions? My brain hurts.

[Charlls]

11. lot better is a continuous election system

the problem is that is way out of what the stablishment says us as "feasible"

continuous election could be easily implemented just adapting the current bank accounting systems to the needs of an election system, and it would be a LOT more secure than the current one.

the problem is that the political/media stablishment doesnt talk about it, so it shouldn't exist.

to support negative votes would only need to support the vote as a qualification for each candidate with 1,0 and -1

But you are missing the point, the problem with democracy is that is way rigid, while our society is not anymore. And that will not be solved just with kicking out Bush


"e pur si muove"
Galileo Galilei

[sweetheart]

14. participatory democracy using internet technologies

I agree that the banking technology systems are already capable of providing a secure, global backbone for referendums. Just i'm trying to think what a continuous system works like, as it sounds like rote populism, which i don't support... democracy by poll and without policy or intent... media spin'ism.

I am for a national poll on issues, like say a huge database that is securly separate from its voters (privacy absolute) but that this database is state controlled referendum central where i can put my vote on abortion in to the bloody thing once and for all. Yes on choice, now, tomorrow and forever... don't ask me again.

No on wars, now, tomorrow and forever, don't ask me again.. if i change my mind, i'll re-login and change my standing-vote... but then you hit on a whole evolution in democracy which will emerge with thsese technologies over the coming time, likely not in teh USA where the constitutional worship is pathetic and obsolete... newer technologies allow participatory democracy and specialization in legislatures and debate participation unconcieved of during the time of the constitution's framers.

What exactly is your vision of a continuous election?

[Charlls]

15. continuous election work like this

continuous election works simply like this: you go to the electoral office to update your vote when you see fit. The government is maintained keeping the simple majority of votes, and the congress seats are keep belonging to the most <pick your number of seats> voted for the job. There is no "election", as understood currently, as a massive summoning in a single day. Precisely populism would tend to rule out since would be not enough anymore to obtain a government; the real job will be to keep it.

That means that the voters, the actual supporters of a government in first instance, would never be put aside of the equation

[sweetheart]

16. i like that

i would vote for your model were it on a state ballot initiative or wherever i see it... sounds intelligent and healthy.

[pmbryant]

17. Very interesting idea

I've never heard of this particular scheme before, but I think I like it.

:thumbsup:

--Peter

[sweetheart]

12. none of the above is not NOT

I don't mean a no-confidence vote in the poll... i mean voting in the poll to cancel out a vote of another voter. It is different in principal and practice... the incumbent stays is not the idea at all and is a recipe for disaster (as in the current conundrum).