Voting for anyone but rather than just for

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kmarinas86
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Voting
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of allowing voters to select "anyone but" a particular candidate in elections, exploring its potential impact on the voting system and voter behavior. Participants consider the mechanics of such a voting method, its implications for strategic voting, and comparisons to existing voting systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose the idea of voting for "anyone but" a specific candidate to allow other candidates to gain votes, potentially revitalizing the electoral process.
  • One participant suggests that this concept could be better suited for a system with multiple rounds of voting, as it might help avoid the dilemma of choosing the lesser of two evils.
  • Another participant mentions that proportional representation systems already incorporate a form of this idea, where votes can transfer based on preferences, but raises concerns about the equal weighting of preferences.
  • Several participants express dissatisfaction with the current practice of voting for the lesser of two evils, indicating a desire for more viable options.
  • There is a humorous exchange regarding the implications of voting for the "greater of evils," highlighting the complexities of voter sentiment and humor in political discussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement on the dissatisfaction with current voting practices, but there is no consensus on the feasibility or effectiveness of the "anyone but" voting concept. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications and mechanics of such a system.

Contextual Notes

Participants do not fully explore the mechanics of implementing the "anyone but" voting system, leaving several assumptions and potential challenges unaddressed. The discussion also reflects personal experiences and subjective interpretations of the political landscape.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring electoral reform, voting systems, and the psychology of voter behavior in political contexts.

kmarinas86
Messages
974
Reaction score
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
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?)
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
14K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 139 ·
5
Replies
139
Views
17K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K