• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

If no one voted

xeemzor

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2005
2,601
0
71
It obviously wouldn't happen. At the very least the people running would vote for themselves.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
But if NO ONE voted at all (even members of the House when they're trying to select a President), then no one would be elected President. Or Senator. Or Congressperson. Or governor. Or anything.

If no one voted at all, there'd be no mayors. And no members of town councils. No members of the school boards. No athletes would ever get voted into any hall of fame and there'd be no sports polls, no BCS, no winner of any boxing match, no MVPs, and no winner of the Cy Young award. No one would win the Miss America or Miss Universe contest. Academy awards and Nobel prizes and Pulitzer prizes would never get awarded. And no criminal would ever get convicted of a crime, nor would anyone ever win or lose a lawsuit.

Nobody would ever get married, either, since saying "I do" is kind of like voting.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,921
3
0
Interesting article I stumbled upon:

One combined effect of the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments is that the House could go on voting, with interruptions for other business and indeed with an infusion of new members in midterm, for four full years. Imagine an acting presidency subject to termination at any time until the House deadlock is finally broken. That would transform the American government into a quasi-parliamentary system. As matters stand in 1980, any disgruntled House member from any of twenty-eight states could threaten to switch his or her vote -- and thereby turn the Acting President back into a lowly Vice President again. The desire to be more than the spare tire of the executive branch could leave an Acting President open to constitutional blackmail. This seems at best a freakish approximation of parliamentary rule, and it would give unprecedented weight to the demands of the narrowest possible interests. But it is conceivable that even such a system could muddle through -- at least until the 1982 congressional elections, which would become hybrid parliamentary votes. Thus, a vote for Republican representatives would be a vote for Reagan; for Democratic representatives, a vote for Carter. Anderson might sponsor his own slate of independent candidates. Thus the deadlock could be broken -- or prolonged.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/80oct/deadlock2.htm
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Who would be president/vp/ect?
I assume you are aware that u.s. voters don't actually elect the president/vp - that the electoral college does. It's easily forgotten the way election results are reported.
 

JJChicken

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2007
6,167
12
81
Originally posted by: xeemzor
It obviously wouldn't happen. At the very least the people running would vote for themselves.
Lol and Hillary (who will soon leave the democract race) will vote for McCain and I will lose :(
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Who would be president/vp/ect?
I assume you are aware that u.s. voters don't actually elect the president/vp - that the electoral college does. It's easily forgotten the way election results are reported.
Yes, which means we would have someone chosen by "them" regardless. At least if we vote, we can pretend that we had a say in the outcome.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY