Is a Negative Voting Option the Solution to Electoral Dilemmas?

[matthyaouw]

I was thinking about elections today and wondering who I'd vote for, and I decided that if there was an election tomorrow I would have to not vote; I do not feel that I understand the issues or policies of the parties well enough to make an informed decision. This brings up a problem though- I may not know who I want voted in but I certainly know of a party or two that I do not want in. I'd feel incredibly guilty if I didn't vote and one of these parties made it, but I'm not too comfortable voting for a party I don't really want for the sake of keeping another party out.

This makes me wonder if there should be an option for a negative vote. Perhaps voters could be given the option to cast their vote as a for or an against. Would this work? Has it been tried or is it currently in use somewhere? Any general oppinions?

 

[edward]

I feel the same way to some extent.

It is almost as if our two party system has turned into a two party boxing match. They have spent more time in recent years jabbing at and ducking each other than Ali and Frazier did in their prime.

They are so occupied with the fisticuffs and low blows that they aren't governing the country.

 

[Evo]

I'm already sick of the fighting between the candidates within the same party.

 

[Maxwell]

I'm already sick of the fighting between the candidates within the same party.

So far I haven't really seen any of that. I've watched every single Republican and Democratic debate, and truthfully, the only fists flying are towards people in the opposite party.

There have been a few scuffles, like in the last Republican debate, they played Sam Brownback's phone message stating that Mitt Romney is not really pro-life and is a flip-flopper. Romney pretty much shut him down during the debate.

There was also the foreign policy difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But there hasn't been any right fighting within the parties yet. Perhaps it's just too early for that.

 

[Evo]

So far I haven't really seen any of that. I've watched every single Republican and Democratic debate, and truthfully, the only fists flying are towards people in the opposite party.

There have been a few scuffles, like in the last Republican debate, they played Sam Brownback's phone message stating that Mitt Romney is not really pro-life and is a flip-flopper. Romney pretty much shut him down during the debate.

There was also the foreign policy difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But there hasn't been any right fighting within the parties yet. Perhaps it's just too early for that.

There's been a lot of bashing between Hillary and Obama, or maybe it's just on tv every time I turn it on.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see how a vote against someone would work, but you can certainly go to the voting booth and vote for no one and it will be recorded that you voted for no one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There's been a lot of bashing between Hillary and Obama, or maybe it's just on tv every time I turn it on.

Jon Stewart spoofed this by showing what the candidates actually said, and then how the media portrayed it.

Pathetic! Anything to get mileage out of a non-story. However I do think that Hillary and Obama each made valid points in the YouTube debate, which is what started the hype.

 

[Evo]

You mean the mud slinging is yet to start?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh, I think it has started, but when a candidate throws a ball of mud, the media reports it as a truck load.

 

[Maxwell]

Jon Stewart spoofed this by showing what the candidates actually said, and then how the media portrayed it.

Pathetic! Anything to get mileage out of a non-story. However I do think that Hillary and Obama each made valid points in the YouTube debate, which is what started the hype.

Yeah, I wouldn't really call this mudslinging. It's just debate.

 

[russ_watters]

There is an article in USA Today right now about Hilllary making very specific, contradictory statements about if she would be willing to use nukes in the war on terror.

NEW YORK (AP) — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.
"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-08-09-clinton-nukes_N.htm

I realize she's polling ahead right now, but I expect that since she is basically just a female copy of her husband, she'll drive herself out of the race.

 

[phoenixy]

There is an article in USA Today right now about Hilllary making very specific, contradictory statements about if she would be willing to use nukes in the war on terror. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-08-09-clinton-nukes_N.htm

I realize she's polling ahead right now, but I expect that since she is basically just a female copy of her husband, she'll drive herself out of the race.

I don't see the contradiction, unless some how Iran had become part of war on terror. Anyways, her stand seems clear: nuclear weapon against a state is on the table, but not so against a vaguely defined ideology concept that is not universally recognized and agreed upon.


Anyways, there are voting system where you can "vote against" certain candidates. STV is one of them. Personally, I think this is a much fair system that also deliver more support to third/forth party candidates. The downside is that cost of general public voting re-education is rather steep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote

 

[Smurf]

They talked about STV in my high school during the referendum. It took a minute for the kids to realize it wasn't a sex-talk.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I was thinking about elections today and wondering who I'd vote for, and I decided that if there was an election tomorrow I would have to not vote;

If I was a politician, and I had favors to hand out, I might give them to those communities who voted for me in the last election, I might give them to those communities that voted for my opponent. But there is no way I would give them to communities that didn't vote. In the last election, I voted for the lesser of two evils, but I don't like the way it has turned out, so this time I am going the other way.

 

[Smurf]

If I was a politician, and I had favors to hand out, I might give them to those communities who voted for me in the last election, I might give them to those communities that voted for my opponent. But there is no way I would give them to communities that didn't vote.

You're assuming you'd be a rational, self-interested, career politician.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see the contradiction, unless some how Iran had become part of war on terror. Anyways, her stand seems clear: nuclear weapon against a state is on the table, but not so against a vaguely defined ideology concept that is not universally recognized and agreed upon.

You got it backwards! I guess it wasn't so clear...

Anyways, there are voting system where you can "vote against" certain candidates. STV is one of them.

I don't see a way to vote against a candidate in that description, just to not vote for one...

 

[Evo]

A "no confidence" vote tally might be interesting, but it wouldn't alter who is elected.

 

[phoenixy]

You got it backwards! I guess it wasn't so clear...

Anyways, my point that she did not contradict herself still stands. But now I'm on the record of disagreeing both of her positions.

I don't see a way to vote against a candidate in that description, just to not vote for one...

The idea is not to prove a point by putting a candidate with negative vote on the front page(how embarrassing! ), but rather make sure your vote, with a weight of 1, contributes negatively toward that candidate. That is done by making sure the vote, with the help of the transfer trick, would contribute positively to someone who has a chance against the non-optimal candidate. Unlike the current system, a vote is not wasted if the assigned candidate wasn't elected.

 

[ShawnD]

In the last election, I voted for the lesser of two evils, but I don't like the way it has turned out, so this time I am going the other way.

So this time you're voting for the greater of two evils?

 

[turbo]

I am an independent, but I register as a Republican or a Democrat as needed, so I can vote in the primaries and support candidates I like (rarely) or vote against a candidate that I dislike (very common). The difference between the Dems and Reps these days center on who they want to give my money to after they steal it. This 2-party system sucks!

 

[ray b]

a none of the above choise
and if none wins
a new slate of candidates with no-one in the first allowed to rerun