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

Voting system- voting against?

  1. Aug 9, 2007 #1

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 9, 2007 #2
    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.
     
  4. Aug 9, 2007 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm already sick of the fighting between the candidates within the same party.
     
  5. Aug 9, 2007 #4
    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.
     
  6. Aug 9, 2007 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There's been a lot of bashing between Hillary and Obama, or maybe it's just on tv every time I turn it on.
     
  7. Aug 9, 2007 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  8. Aug 9, 2007 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    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.
     
  9. Aug 9, 2007 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You mean the mud slinging is yet to start?
     
  10. Aug 9, 2007 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh, I think it has started, but when a candidate throws a ball of mud, the media reports it as a truck load.
     
  11. Aug 9, 2007 #10
    Yeah, I wouldn't really call this mudslinging. It's just debate.
     
  12. Aug 9, 2007 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2007
  13. Aug 9, 2007 #12
    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
     
  14. Aug 9, 2007 #13
    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.
     
  15. Aug 9, 2007 #14
    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.
     
  16. Aug 9, 2007 #15
    You're assuming you'd be a rational, self-interested, career politician.
     
  17. Aug 9, 2007 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You got it backwards! I guess it wasn't so clear... :rofl:
    I don't see a way to vote against a candidate in that description, just to not vote for one....
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2007
  18. Aug 9, 2007 #17

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A "no confidence" vote tally might be interesting, but it wouldn't alter who is elected.
     
  19. Aug 9, 2007 #18
    :bugeye:

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

    The idea is not to prove a point by putting a candidate with negative vote on the front page(how embarrassing! :tongue2:), 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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2007
  20. Aug 10, 2007 #19

    ShawnD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    So this time you're voting for the greater of two evils?
     
  21. Aug 10, 2007 #20

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Voting system- voting against?
  1. Vote Republican (Replies: 176)

  2. To vote or not to vote (Replies: 6)

  3. Voting Turnouts (Replies: 19)

Loading...