Suggestion for a change in the voting process

[cronxeh]

If you had an option to vote 'against' a candidate on the ballot, instead of voting for another candidate from the list, wouldn't that make it more accurate?

Suppose I don't like Bush, but I don't want to vote for Kerry. I want to contribute to the process by voting against Bush, thus nullifying someone else's vote. I think this is a far more accurate way to vote than to vote for someone else who you don't like

 

[Borek]

I believe in Ukrainian presidential election it was possible to vote against all candidates. Not exactly what you mean, still different from classic voting.

No idea how these votes were counted/used - I have just heard it on TV.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you had an option to vote 'against' a candidate on the ballot, instead of voting for another candidate from the list, wouldn't that make it more accurate?

Suppose I don't like Bush, but I don't want to vote for Kerry. I want to contribute to the process by voting against Bush, thus nullifying someone else's vote. I think this is a far more accurate way to vote than to vote for someone else who you don't like

How is a vote against Bush different than a vote for Kerry? What you suggest may make a voter feel better, but it has no practical value. Either way we get Kerry or Bush. That doesn't change.

If you really don't like Bush, then vote for Kerry.

 

[cronxeh]

If you really don't like Bush, then vote for Kerry.

That is the root of the problem. If you don't like someone you don't vote for someone else. Soon there is a pattern and you end up having 2 parties like republicans and democrats, and you like neither one of them. There is a reason why Congress has the lowest approval ratings today, and its due to this mentality.

In last 10 years during a major election I've always wonderd to myself.. 'is this the best we can do??' A misappropriated vote only reinforces this pattern of voting for those who don't belong there, by mere difference of a few opinions.

 

[Borek]

That is the root of the problem. If you don't like someone you don't vote for someone else.

I can be wrong, but it looks to me like - technically - it doesn't matter. If you vote for someone you add him one vote, if you vote against someone - you add one vote to the opponent score.

 

[cronxeh]

I can be wrong, but it looks to me like - technically - it doesn't matter. If you vote for someone you add him one vote, if you vote against someone - you add one vote to the opponent score.

Yes, but you did not intend to vote for the opponent. Politicians tend to take votes as actual support for them, thus a support for their agenda. If you don't support the candidate entirely, then why give power to someone you don't support mostly? This support from polls translates to money in contributions from special interests. This translates into advertisment on TV and a perpetual vote for the candidate. Its like you did not even mean to put the guy there in the first place, but now you have no choice.


I'm just looking at the support levels for Congress and its anywhere between 16 and 22 percent. That is ridiculous.

 

[BobG]

I take it you mean a vote "against" would subtract a vote from one candidate instead of add one vote to a candidate.

In a two candidate election, there's not a whole lot of difference. It could make a significant difference in multi-candidate elections. Voting for the wrong "other candidate" would waste your vote (i.e. - voting for the 3rd place, 4th place candidate). A vote against would make it easier for all of the other candidates to defeat the candidate you voted against.

That might seem unfair, as if a person voting "against" was given more votes than people voting "for" a single candidate. I'm not quite sure, since a person voting "against" is also giving up some of his ability to decide which particular candidate gets elected.

It might be a little embarrassing if a third party candidate running a particularly quiet campaign won with 0 votes because the "against" votes outnumbered the "for" votes for all of the candidates actually running an active campaign.

 

[cronxeh]

I take it you mean a vote "against" would subtract a vote from one candidate instead of add one vote to a candidate.

In a two candidate election, there's not a whole lot of difference. It could make a significant difference in multi-candidate elections. Voting for the wrong "other candidate" would waste your vote (i.e. - voting for the 3rd place, 4th place candidate). A vote against would make it easier for all of the other candidates to defeat the candidate you voted against.

That might seem unfair, as if a person voting "against" was given more votes than people voting "for" a single candidate. I'm not quite sure, since a person voting "against" is also giving up some of his ability to decide which particular candidate gets elected.

It might be a little embarrassing if a third party candidate running a particularly quiet campaign won with 0 votes because the "against" votes outnumbered the "for" votes for all of the candidates actually running an active campaign.

If other candidates had half as many positive votes as the first two, they deserve to win if the first two candidates are disliked by so many people. Your vote equals 0 if I vote against your candidate. Thats fair, and that is mathematically the only way to determine actual winners

Its like the http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ for politicians.

Case in point: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spy_next_door/ The minute I saw the trailer for that movie I knew it was going to suck. 8% on RT confirms it.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think this is what we have polls for. and polls allow you to test for a lot more sentiments than simply "not this guy".

 

[CRGreathouse]

Reminds me of http://www.nota.org/ .

 

[edpell]

There should be a line "none of the above". If it wins the office remains empty for the term.

 

[edpell]

More generally we should do away with representatives and have direct democratic vote on all issues.

 

[Proton Soup]

More generally we should do away with representatives and have direct democratic vote on all issues.

heh, some claim this as the source of California's woes

 

[MotoH]

Get rid of the voting process all together and bring back the monarchy.

 

[edpell]

heh, some claim this as the source of California's woes

You mean propositions? Well yes, there is always a learning curve in new organizations.

 

[edpell]

Get rid of the voting process all together and bring back the monarchy.

That is fine as long as I am the Monarch.

 

[BobG]

More generally we should do away with representatives and have direct democratic vote on all issues.

heh, some claim this as the source of California's woes

However bad a representative democracy works, a direct democracy works worse. After all, if voters don't have the time necessary to research which candidate is competent, how are they going to handle the even greater workload it would take to be knowledgeable on every single issue at a city, county, state, and federal level. It really is a lot more effective to pick a good person to do that kind of work for you (if voters can at least figure out which candidates are good people).

Colorado has had many of the same problems as California - especially when it comes to allowing residents to create amendments to the State Constitution. Not only are there some people that just aren't all that smart, they exist both in conservative and liberal flavors.

Thanks to voter initiatives, Colorado has State Consititutional Amendments that require tax revenues to slowly decrease over time and that require spending on education to increase steadily over time. Someday, those two amendments will result in the entire state budget being spent on education. Then I guess we have a constitutional crisis the next year when it becomes impossible to comply with both state constitutional amendments.

 

[edpell]

After all, if voters don't have the time necessary to research which candidate is competent, how are they going to handle the even greater workload it would take to be knowledgeable on every single issue at a city, county, state, and federal level.

I would use the advice of advisers that think the way I do and have the values I have. Just as current day congress persons do not have the time to... they use staff. If we all voted we would all use staff of one form or another.

 

[Proton Soup]

I would use the advice of advisers that think the way I do and have the values I have. Just as current day congress persons do not have the time to... they use staff. If we all voted we would all use staff of one form or another.

better yet, we could also get lobbyists that take us out to dinner and tell us how to vote. heck, i bet they could even figure out a way to get real dinero into our pockets.