Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Suggestion for a change in the voting process

  1. Jan 23, 2010 #1

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 dont like Bush, but I dont 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 dont like
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 23, 2010 #2

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  4. Jan 23, 2010 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  5. Jan 23, 2010 #4

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That is the root of the problem. If you dont like someone you dont 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 dont belong there, by mere difference of a few opinions.
     
  6. Jan 23, 2010 #5

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  7. Jan 23, 2010 #6

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 dont 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.
     
  8. Jan 25, 2010 #7

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  9. Jan 25, 2010 #8

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2010
  10. Jan 25, 2010 #9
    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".
     
  11. Jan 25, 2010 #10

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Reminds me of http://www.nota.org/ [Broken] .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  12. Feb 1, 2010 #11
    There should be a line "none of the above". If it wins the office remains empty for the term.
     
  13. Feb 1, 2010 #12
    More generally we should do away with representatives and have direct democratic vote on all issues.
     
  14. Feb 1, 2010 #13
    heh, some claim this as the source of California's woes
     
  15. Feb 1, 2010 #14
    Get rid of the voting process all together and bring back the monarchy.
     
  16. Feb 1, 2010 #15
    You mean propositions? Well yes, there is always a learning curve in new organizations.
     
  17. Feb 1, 2010 #16
    That is fine as long as I am the Monarch.
     
  18. Feb 2, 2010 #17

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  19. Feb 2, 2010 #18
    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.
     
  20. Feb 3, 2010 #19
    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook