I really wish we could vote AGAINST a politician in the U.S.

[Gizmo j]

Instead of having to vote FOR a politician we should have the option to vote AGAINST a politician, meaning the candidate would receive a negative vote.

If I had that option I would vote at every opportunity possible!

I would even start political movements to inspire others to vote against certain candidates such as Hillary Clinton.

 

[ImpulsE69]

They'd just mysteriously lose those votes anyway.

 

[Markbnj]

Silly. You vote against a politician by voting for another candidate. Simply not voting is the equivalent of voting against all of them.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Instead of having to vote FOR a politician we should have the right to vote AGAINST a politician, meaning the candidate would receive a negative vote.

If I had that option I would vote at every opportunity possible!

I would even start political movements to inspire others to vote against certain candidates such as Hillary Clinton.

Let me guess, you're one step above a retard.

 

[Jeff7]

Silly. You vote against a politician by voting for another candidate. Simply not voting is the equivalent of voting against all of them.

I've done write-ins for some candidates, for what that's worth. I guess it's as close as we've got to a vote of "none of the above."

Staying at home can also be perceived as "not giving a damn."

 

[Sulaco]

Let me guess, you're one step above a retard.

Worse.

I think he's still in high school.

 

[NarrowTech]

Instead of having to vote FOR a politician we should have the right to vote AGAINST a politician, meaning the candidate would receive a negative vote.

If I had that option I would vote at every opportunity possible!

I would even start political movements to inspire others to vote against certain candidates such as Hillary Clinton.

That sounds like a good idea as long as you can't vote against Hillary Clinton

 

[rh71]

When was the last time a politician was considered good for everyone and performed in office satisfactorily? This 2 party system means there's always going to be a divide and not everyone will be happy. Democracy means giving us a choice but what good is it if half the people lose it automatically? It's bs smoke and mirrors to put some power hungry people in a position and I will not be a part of it. What's worse is there's sports fan mentality with back and forth bullshit like my team is better than yours every time politics is brought up. Give it a rest, we all lose in the end, every year.

The first step to fixing this is to make them all independent. Just give us the facts without all this money-driven coercion behind you to begin with and if you don't deliver we move on quickly. Cap the number of candidates too and I'll be glad to vote for the best. Oh that's right, that would be too fair a playing field. We the people would rather feed the greed than get what we really want from a voting system. USA - where people elect their pre-elected and brag to each other that their team won.

 

[fskimospy]

When was the last time a politician was considered good for everyone and performed in office satisfactorily? This 2 party system means there's always going to be a divide and not everyone will be happy. Democracy means giving us a choice but what good is it if half the people lose it automatically? It's bs smoke and mirrors to put some power hungry people in a position and I will not be a part of it. What's worse is there's sports fan mentality with back and forth bullshit like my team is better than yours every time politics is brought up. Give it a rest, we all lose in the end, every year.

The first step to fixing this is to make them all independent. Just give us the facts without all this money-driven coercion behind you to begin with and if you don't deliver we move on quickly. Cap the number of candidates too and I'll be glad to vote for the best. Oh that's right, that would be too fair a playing field. We the people would rather feed the greed than get what we really want from a voting system. USA - where people elect their pre-elected and brag to each other that their team won.

No candidate in the history of democracy has been considered good for everyone.

 

[PokerGuy]

Actually, I like the idea of being able to vote against a politician.

The system we currently have often gives you one candidate that sucks, and another that sucks much worse. Then, the one that sucks a slight bit less wins, and you're supposed to be happy that "your" candidate won.

In essence, you generally have to vote for a lesser of evils.

If you had positive and negative votes, you could vote for someone, or vote against someone, and the requirement would be that the winner tally a certain percentage of the "net" vote.

Of course this could never happen, the powers that be are far to entrenched in power to allow it to slip away.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

When was the last time a politician was considered good for everyone and performed in office satisfactorily? This 2 party system means there's always going to be a divide and not everyone will be happy. Democracy means giving us a choice but what good is it if half the people lose it automatically? It's bs smoke and mirrors to put some power hungry people in a position and I will not be a part of it. What's worse is there's sports fan mentality with back and forth bullshit like my team is better than yours every time politics is brought up. Give it a rest, we all lose in the end, every year.

The first step to fixing this is to make them all independent. Just give us the facts without all this money-driven coercion behind you to begin with and if you don't deliver we move on quickly. Cap the number of candidates too and I'll be glad to vote for the best. Oh that's right, that would be too fair a playing field. We the people would rather feed the greed than get what we really want from a voting system. USA - where people elect their pre-elected and brag to each other that their team won.

I've thought similar stuff too. Like news should only identify the name not the Party. I realized they'd still manage to pool up its human nature then instead of D or R after their name they would just wear a pin or a blue tie bs a red tie.
The real gain comes from removing money from politics, fix gerrymandering.

 

[Ken g6]

An effective none of the above voting option would be nice. Something that requires new candidates to be added to the ballot.

When None of the Above is listed on a ballot, there is the possibility of NOTA receiving a majority or plurality of the vote, and so "winning" the election. In such a case, a variety of formal procedures may be invoked, including having the office remain vacant, having the office filled by appointment, re-opening nominations or holding another election (in a body operating under parliamentary procedure), or it may have no effect whatsoever, as in India and the US state of Nevada, where the next highest total wins regardless.

Of course, I think instant-runoff voting would be better. Then again, I guess the two could be combined. Vote for any people you want to win, then none of the above, then for the least-worst people if NOTA doesn't win. :hmm:

 

[TheSlamma]

Uhh, that is what is happening, has been for a long time. Why do you think the primaries just end up with the $$$$ best $$$ shot to win $$$

 

[Moonbeam]

I get so tired of this.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Actually, I like the idea of being able to vote against a politician.

The system we currently have often gives you one candidate that sucks, and another that sucks much worse. Then, the one that sucks a slight bit less wins, and you're supposed to be happy that "your" candidate won.

In essence, you generally have to vote for a lesser of evils.

If you had positive and negative votes, you could vote for someone, or vote against someone, and the requirement would be that the winner tally a certain percentage of the "net" vote.

Of course this could never happen, the powers that be are far to entrenched in power to allow it to slip away.

The problem with this is that our system is set up so that someone has to win, which to at least some extent is logical, we need someone in that position otherwise we wouldn't even bother.
So, in that system a vote against a candidate is almost exactly the same as a vote for the opposing candidate.

If we had a reasonable election system instead of our 'Winner take all' system then the No vote would not be needed. But as it is now we have a two party system, and voting against one party is exactly the same as voting for the other.

 

[werepossum]

Silly. You vote against a politician by voting for another candidate. Simply not voting is the equivalent of voting against all of them.

Simply not voting is also the equivalent of just not caring. I prefer to vote for someone; it at least lets the two parties know that they could have gotten your vote.

When was the last time a politician was considered good for everyone and performed in office satisfactorily? This 2 party system means there's always going to be a divide and not everyone will be happy. Democracy means giving us a choice but what good is it if half the people lose it automatically? It's bs smoke and mirrors to put some power hungry people in a position and I will not be a part of it. What's worse is there's sports fan mentality with back and forth bullshit like my team is better than yours every time politics is brought up. Give it a rest, we all lose in the end, every year.

The first step to fixing this is to make them all independent. Just give us the facts without all this money-driven coercion behind you to begin with and if you don't deliver we move on quickly. Cap the number of candidates too and I'll be glad to vote for the best. Oh that's right, that would be too fair a playing field. We the people would rather feed the greed than get what we really want from a voting system. USA - where people elect their pre-elected and brag to each other that their team won.

I'd happily settle for roughly half the people being unhappy with whomever wins. Seems to me that usually 3/4 of the people are unhappy with whomever wins.

Well, one correction: probably 3/4 of the people don't even know who won, at least below the Presidential level.

An effective none of the above voting option would be nice. Something that requires new candidates to be added to the ballot.

Of course, I think instant-runoff voting would be better. Then again, I guess the two could be combined. Vote for any people you want to win, then none of the above, then for the least-worst people if NOTA doesn't win. :hmm:

I agree, ranked voting with instant runoff would rule, and/or none of the above which would trigger another election in thirty days.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd happily settle for roughly half the people being unhappy with whomever wins. Seems to me that usually 3/4 of the people are unhappy with whomever wins.

Well, one correction: probably 3/4 of the people don't even know who won, at least below the Presidential level.

Presidential approval ratings tend to stay somewhere around 50%, so looks like you got your wish?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/p...ings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx

For what it's worth, Obama has averaged ~47% so far.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

 

[werepossum]

Presidential approval ratings tend to stay somewhere around 50%, so looks like you got your wish?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/p...ings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx

For what it's worth, Obama has averaged ~47% so far.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Presidential approval does tend to be around 50%, more or less. Even when disapproving doesn't carry a probable charge of racism. We do however have elections for offices other than President.

 

[K7SN]

An effective none of the above voting option would be nice. Something that requires new candidates to be added to the ballot.
... :hmm:

We have that option in Nevada BUT it is not effective when only 10% take that choice and a person still wins an election by getting less than 50% of the vote but more than the other cockroach politician.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Presidential approval does tend to be around 50%, more or less. Even when disapproving doesn't carry a probable charge of racism. We do however have elections for offices other than President.

Why would we have any need for any other elected official. I watch the news so I know that The President is responsible for taxation, the budget, creating laws, repealing laws, waging war, invading places (Including states that are already in the Union), healthcare, trade deals, international treaties, global warming, bad cell reception, teens not respecting their elders, and something called Bazingi.

 

[fskimospy]

Presidential approval does tend to be around 50%, more or less. Even when disapproving doesn't carry a probable charge of racism. We do however have elections for offices other than President.

Approval ratings for individual members of Congress are usually similar.

Also, stop being stupid about the racism thing.

 

[werepossum]

Why would we have any need for any other elected official. I watch the news so I know that The President is responsible for taxation, the budget, creating laws, repealing laws, waging war, invading places (Including states that are already in the Union), healthcare, trade deals, international treaties, global warming, bad cell reception, teens not respecting their elders, and something called Bazingi.

lol Pretty much. Although I have it on good authority that the President had never even heard of Bazingi until they hosted a game on ESPN.

Approval ratings for individual members of Congress are usually similar.

Also, stop being stupid about the racism thing.

Just as soon as the left stops accusing everyone who disagrees with Obama on literally anything of racism. So, basically, never.

 

[fskimospy]

Just as soon as the left stops accusing everyone who disagrees with Obama on literally anything of racism. So, basically, never.

So basically when you come back from whatever delusional world of imagined victimhood you live in.

Maybe that is never, haha. You do appear to really love being a victim.

 

[Moonbeam]

lol Pretty much. Although I have it on good authority that the President had never even heard of Bazingi until they hosted a game on ESPN.


Just as soon as the left stops accusing everyone who disagrees with Obama on literally anything of racism. So, basically, never.

Can you give an example of a criticism of Obama that isn't racist?

 

[chowderhead]

Instead of having to vote FOR a politician we should have the option to vote AGAINST a politician, meaning the candidate would receive a negative vote.

If I had that option I would vote at every opportunity possible!

I would even start political movements to inspire others to vote against certain candidates such as Hillary Clinton.

the grass is greener! The only person that you will agree with on every political position is ... you.

ETA: In Nevada, you can vote for "none of these candidates" in state and federal elections. If "none of these" gets the most votes, the actual person who got the next most votes wins so basically nothing but a protest.