• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If there were a None of the Above option would you use it?

Nitemare

Nitemare

Lifer
for the primary and presidency

I'm getting sick and tired of elections where all the candidates are turds and you have to pick the one that smells the least.

What I propose is that if None of the Above wins, then you get rid of all the candidates and get new ones. So instead of having to pick which school cafeteria worker is the prettiest, we could actually get somebody decent to vote for.
 
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Only if when the none of the above option won the vote, all other parties were executed. That'd be pretty wild.
Click to expand...

Doubt if congress would allow that, but we might be able to swing either a flogging or the inability to ever run for public election again.
 
no.

I actually really dig several of the people running this year and look forward to hopefully voting for at least one of them.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
no.

I actually really dig several of the people running this year and look forward to hopefully voting for at least one of them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but do any of them actually have a chance of winning?
 
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: loki8481
no.

I actually really dig several of the people running this year and look forward to hopefully voting for at least one of them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but do any of them actually have a chance of winning?
Click to expand...

I think Hillary and Obama both have decent chances of winning. McCain, maybe not so much.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: loki8481
no.

I actually really dig several of the people running this year and look forward to hopefully voting for at least one of them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but do any of them actually have a chance of winning?
Click to expand...

I think Hillary and Obama both have decent chances of winning. McCain, maybe not so much.
Click to expand...

Hillary will win, that is a foregone conclusion.

I'm just worried that Romney will win as well.
 
I've thought about this, before, and I think the complete rule should be that "None of the above" should be an option for elective offices, and if that's what the majority chose, a new election should follow, all of those candidates should be disqualified from the running in the follow-up.

Those who were disqualified would not lose their right to run in any subsequent election.
 
For presidential? It doesnt fucking matter. If the choices were Mickey Mouse Donald Duck and Scooby Doo, electors will put who THEY think should be in office. Like they always do.

Leave the fucking thing blank and we will have an elected president. All these discussions are meaningless for presidential elections.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
I've thought about this, before, and I think the complete rule should be that "None of the above" should be an option for elective offices, and if that's what the majority chose, a new election should follow, all of those candidates should be disqualified from the running in the follow-up.

Those who were disqualified would not lose their right to run in any subsequent election.
Click to expand...

I agree. IF "NOTA" were the majority vote, ALL who ran during the previous campaign should be disqualified from running again until the next election cycle.


Originally posted by: blackangst1
For presidential? It doesnt fucking matter. If the choices were Mickey Mouse Donald Duck and Scooby Doo, electors will put who THEY think should be in office. Like they always do.

Leave the fucking thing blank and we will have an elected president. All these discussions are meaningless for presidential elections.
Click to expand...

The older (and more cynical) I get, the more I agree with this. "We the People" doesn't mean shit anymore...we get the policitians that the political machine says we get.
 
so if it goes on for 3-4 elections who would be in charge while this goes on? How long does it last? How long in between elections? What happens if we are at war while this is going on?
 
If voting for NOTA and that option winning leaves the current, standing president in office then no, wouldn't use it in this cycle. I would have used it in 2000 just like I am sure the Bush faithful would use it in 2008.
 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
If voting for NOTA and that option winning leaves the current, standing president in office then no, wouldn't use it in this cycle. I would have used it in 2000 just like I am sure the Bush faithful would use it in 2008.
Click to expand...

If no President or Vice-President is elected then I think the 25th Amendment would probably kick in to preserve the continuity of government and advance the Speaker of the House to the status of Acting President. Pelosi would probably be the Acting President until the House held their election for a new speaker of the new session of Congress.

Eventually a new set of primaries and national election would have to be held.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: umbrella39
If voting for NOTA and that option winning leaves the current, standing president in office then no, wouldn't use it in this cycle. I would have used it in 2000 just like I am sure the Bush faithful would use it in 2008.
Click to expand...

If no President or Vice-President is elected then I think the 25th Amendment would probably kick in to preserve the continuity of government and advance the Speaker of the House to the status of Acting President. Pelosi would probably be the Acting President until the House held their election for a new speaker of the new session of Congress.

Eventually a new set of primaries and national election would have to be held.
Click to expand...

your point is only valid if electors do this. The rest of us? It wouldnt change a thing.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: umbrella39
If voting for NOTA and that option winning leaves the current, standing president in office then no, wouldn't use it in this cycle. I would have used it in 2000 just like I am sure the Bush faithful would use it in 2008.
Click to expand...

If no President or Vice-President is elected then I think the 25th Amendment would probably kick in to preserve the continuity of government and advance the Speaker of the House to the status of Acting President. Pelosi would probably be the Acting President until the House held their election for a new speaker of the new session of Congress.

Eventually a new set of primaries and national election would have to be held.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we really don't need a year and a half for each candidate to sell themselves. If none of the above wins, we could have the interim president stay for another half year until we have a dance off to determine who the next one is.

But Nancy Pelosi in charge....hmmm, that just kind of shows you how farged up our elected officials already are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top