Voting for anyone but rather than just for

  • News
  • Thread starter kmarinas86
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Voting
In summary, this conversation is about whether people should be able to vote for "anyone but" a particular person, in other words, subtracting a vote from a candidate so that all other candidates can catch up. The idea is that this would inject some vigor into an increasingly moribund system, but it's not clear how it would work. It would be best paired with a second or even n'th election, until as usual we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, but they may be less evil?
  • #1
kmarinas86
979
1
Voting for "anyone but" rather than just "for"

Would you think if would be fair if people were allowed the choice to vote for "anyone but" a particular person >>> in other words, subtracting a vote from a candidate so that all other candidates can catch up?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Thats a damn interesting notion that might inject some vigor into an increasingly moribund system. Not sure of the mechanics. Let's say we have someone like Perot, vs H Clinton vs Romney. You're not crazy about Clinton, favor Perot, but don't want to "waste" a vote, so you vote anybody but Romney. I'm sure all the games theory gurus could give a much more cogent analysis than I, so won't bother. It would seem though this would be best mated with a second or even n'th election, until as usual we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, (but they may be less evil?)
 
  • #3
denverdoc said:
Thats a damn interesting notion that might inject some vigor into an increasingly moribund system. Not sure of the mechanics. Let's say we have someone like Perot, vs H Clinton vs Romney. You're not crazy about Clinton, favor Perot, but don't want to "waste" a vote, so you vote anybody but Romney. I'm sure all the games theory gurus could give a much more cogent analysis than I, so won't bother. It would seem though this would be best mated with a second or even n'th election, until as usual we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, (but they may be less evil?)
Some proportional representation systems already pretty much works that way whereby you vote in order of preference ignoring any candidates you really dislike so if your first choice is eliminated your vote transfers to your second choice and so on. In each round of counting the excess votes of candidates that reach the quota (normally >50% of the vote) are redistributed as are the votes for the person polling the least who is eliminated. The vote counting finishes when canditates reach their quota or when the number of candidates left equals the number of positions to be filled.

A key argument against this system is it effectively gives equal weight between one person's first preference and another's second, third, fourth or more preference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
denverdoc said:
It would seem though this would be best mated with a second or even n'th election, until as usual we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, (but they may be less evil?)
I voted for the lesser of two evils last time and was unsatisfied with the result. I'll never do that again.
 
  • #5
I'll resist the notion to suggest that you misgauged the "evil" quotient. At least this time around, looks like we have some brains to choose from.
 
  • #6
denverdoc said:
At least this time around, looks like we have some brains to choose from.
Makes no never mind to me, I am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.
 
  • #7
jimmysnyder said:
Makes no never mind to me, I am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.

Trying to understand your logic here...

So, next time you're going to vote for the greater of the evils?
 
  • #8
DaveC426913 said:
Trying to understand your logic here...

So, next time you're going to vote for the greater of the evils?
I never put smilies on my jokes. It gets me in a lot of hot water, but that's the way I am.
 

What is the difference between voting for anyone and voting for a specific candidate?

Voting for anyone means that you are not choosing a specific candidate and are open to voting for any of the candidates on the ballot. On the other hand, voting for a specific candidate means that you have researched and chosen a particular candidate to vote for based on their qualifications and views.

Why would someone choose to vote for anyone rather than a specific candidate?

Some people may choose to vote for anyone because they do not agree with the policies or beliefs of any of the specific candidates. They may also feel that none of the candidates adequately represent their views.

Does voting for anyone have any impact on the election?

Yes, voting for anyone can have a significant impact on the outcome of an election. If a large number of people vote for anyone, it can split the vote and potentially lead to a less popular candidate winning.

Is voting for anyone a strategic decision?

It can be considered a strategic decision depending on the individual's goals and beliefs. Some people may strategically vote for anyone in order to prevent a certain candidate from winning, while others may do so as a form of protest against the current political system.

Can voting for anyone be beneficial for a democracy?

It can be argued that voting for anyone can promote a more diverse and inclusive democracy. By not limiting oneself to a specific candidate, it allows for a wider range of voices and perspectives to be heard in the political process.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
994
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
793
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
13K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top