Stay home on election day. You don't deserve to make desisions that affect the rest of us.

This reminds me of people who go to internet polls and vote "no opinion". Why do they bother?

One can engage in this form of absenteeism and still not hate the constitutional order. They could object to that their preferred candidate could not, for some reason, gain ballot status. Or they could see no viable candidate among those currently running. Voters owe nothing to candidates simply because they managed to gain ballot status, and should have every right to actively reject all of them.

but where I live, that's never happened.

Here near Youngstown I've always been passionate about my choice of representatives. Once, Jim Traficant ran from prison so I suppose that may have qualified as "none" for some people, but I supported our current Dem, Tim Ryan, and he'll get my vote again in November. Had those malcontent old coots who voted for Traficant voted for the viable Democrat instead of their stupid "Free Traficant" candidate, Ryan would have won by a landslide like he did four years later.

I've never been any less passionate about my options for federal elections either, and don't approve of those who voted Nader as the "none" candidate because "there isn't a sheet of paper's difference between the two parties". That's how we suffered through two Bush terms.

This political apathy that spurs people to cast protest votes like "none of the above" have driven us to a place where we have to pick one side or the other and stand for it. Maybe it's just my Steel Valley democratic union roots, but in an election with two parties on the ballot, there's always a motivated choice.

NUN of The Above!

I feel sorry for you. Why do you think someone would have to hate their government to vote for none of the above?

I can't imagine having a candidate that is not overwhelmingly a good choice, but perhaps it's geographical.

Here near Youngstown I've always been passionate about my choice of representatives. Once, Jim Traficant ran from prison so I suppose that may have qualified as "none" for some people, but I supported our current Dem Congressamn, Tim Ryan, and he'll get my enthusiastic vote again in November, as will Sherrod Brown. Had those malcontent old coots who voted for Traficant voted for the viable Democrat instead of their stupid "Free Traficant" candidate, Ryan would have won by a landslide like he did four years later.

I've never been any less passionate about my options for federal elections either, and don't approve of those who voted Nader as the "none" candidate because "there isn't a sheet of paper's difference between the two parties". That's how we suffered through two crippling Bush terms.

This political apathy that spurs people to cast protest votes like "none of the above" have driven us to a place where we have to pick one side or the other and stand for it. Maybe it's just my Steel Valley democratic union roots, but in an election with two parties on the ballot, there's always a motivated choice.

The funny thing is the first time Owens ran, a tea party candidate primaried the Republican candidate and beat her. The Republican candidate he beat was much more liberal than Owens and I probably would have voted for her. That's the kind of Republicans we have here, except for the newer ones. Owens by the way was the first Democrat Representative elected in my district since around the Civil War.

I don't see any problem with people that voted for Nader, nor do I see a problem with anyone that would vote for "none of the above". The problem isn't the people that vote, it's all the people that are in the same boat we are and don't vote for.

But it wouldn't be America if the only people allowed to run for office were limited to the two major parties. And if the only people you could vote for were members of those same parties, it wouldn't be America, would it?

Please explain how You and/or any of the corrupt, dishonest and sociopathic "representatives" deserve to make decisions that affect the rest of us. I have never understood that part of the so called representative democracy.

In my democratic district in Ohio we're represented by congressman Tim Ryan of Niles. One of his first achievements in office was to carve money from the 2003 highway bill for the National Packard Museum located here in Warren. Without local representation that money would have been allocated by a federal board based on where they thought it should go. Ryan's last real GOP contender promised he wouldn't take any federal money for us in the Mahoning Valley. He was shocked that he didn't win.

Since then, Congressman Ryan has earmarked non-matching federal money for a community amphitheater that hosts weekly concerts free of charge and directed cash from the Stimulus Spending Bill to rejuvenate a once shuttered steel mill (V-Star Steel) in Youngstown that brought in hundreds of new jobs. The list of perks his representation brought us goes on and on in the last ten years.

On a personal level, my senator, democrat Sherrod Brown, petitioned President Obama to lend the money that saved General Motors. That move maintained my pension check for the forseeable future, against the wishes of the GOP. Now the GM plant in nearby Lordstown is adding workers this month to build a new Cobalt platform.

Though I'm sorry your representitive is "corrupt, sociopathic, and dishonest", you're incorrect in assuming all of congress is just as low. Perhaps if stupid people didn't waste their vote on "none of the above", democrats could get things done for more people.

Do you know who else tells me our politicians are "all the same" and corrupt?... My Tea Party friends who can't come up with a viable reason to vote for Republicans, but do anyway. They also tell me we have to "vote all the bums out" (at least as long as we have democrats)..

I welcome Tim Ryan and Sherrod Brown to make decisions that affect me and others in Ohio and the country in general and will work for their re-election this fall. I'm puzzled as to why you don't understand why I would do that.

Perhaps you're a borderline anarchist who thinks little or no government is best for the country, in which case there's only a paper thin difference between you and the Tea Party at large.

and I'm not borderline anarchist but the real deal. And Tea Party is hierarchic capitalist organization that has absolutely nothing to do with anarchism. Pure military government to protect private property could not be further from anarchism.

Social psychological studies confirm that power hierarchies - e.g. representative system and political parties - greatly favor sociopaths and compulsive liers to rise to the top of those hierarchies. And that people on top of hierarchies making the rules are very likely to consider themselves exempt from the rules they make for others.

Unless it's of course to argue for a form of government that eliminates the need for party politics. I mean it's obvious you have no need to go to the voting booth, let alone support Democrats. By your own words, there isn't a Democrat you can trust to represent you.

I personally think you're an uninformed troll who has a lot of growing up to do before you speak politics

to talk with people, for mutual education and entertainment, and I've made some good friends here. And I'm not American so US elections don't concern me for that part, deciding who to vote or not to vote. I did vote in last local elections, a Pirate Party candidate. Probably most anarchists don't vote, but there is no anarchist authority who can tell other other anarchists not to vote, either. Or not to participate in traditional party politics, if that is fun for someone.

I can understand why you're so negative about our Representative form of government. It seems very complex and at times unfair from the outside.

The congressman from my district, who stands for re-election every two years, goes to Washington DC to represent my interests when federal money is doled out. I'm a huge supporter, as are the great majority of voters here, and have every confidence he has only our welfare at heart. He's proven himself an effective local voice in DC for five straight terms.

On the federal level, Ohio enjoys the pro-labor Senator, Sherrod Brown. He and his wonderful wife, Pulitzer Prize winning Cleveland Journalist Connie Schultz, have nothing but the best interests of workers on their minds when they respectively write a column or cast a senate vote. They are truly wonderful people.

I can see why someone who doesn't know such political creatures exist might be cynical, but I'm more than enthusiastic about my Representatives and work hard to ensure their incumbancy.

When someone tries to tell me "they're all crooked", I invite them to produce the evidence and I'll help present it to the attorney general. I have no partisan tolerance for corruption. So far there have been no takers.

who cannot be corrupted, at least as easily as most others. My criticism of representative system is systemic and general, in terms of political philosophy instead of particulars such as US or Dems. Representative system, as all power hierarchies, are inherently corrupt and corruptive - "all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". In multiparty systems we see over and over again how grass roots movements that take the route of political party become co-opted and corrupted by the system and end up as part of the establishment. Greens are good example. Most people who join political parties and strive party political careers for idealistic reasons have to kiss ass and sell out to advance their position in the power hierarchy, and they do.

Human social psychology just has not evolved in and for representative system. Many things can be done and tried of course, also inside the representative system, to avoid corruption. Pirate Parties have idea of representatives acting as informers and button pushers of direct and participative on-line democracy. After Iceland's revolution part of the social movement decided to take the parliamentary route, but the party decided to have maximum life-span of eight years, asking each year if people still think it's necessary, and if the list of things to get done gets ready earlier, the party will also disband.

&feature=player_embedded

I personally couldn't envision myself ever voting "None", but if somebody wants to, why prevent them? No one's vote is lost except the votes of people who choose to give up their chance of affecting the outcome because they'd rather send a message.

Because in every election except those for President, VP and Congress, the only candidates were Republicans running unopposed.

Though not for president. Smaller races where I'm not as familiar with the candidates, or in one instance where the Democrat was a corrupt, homophobic asshole, I'm comfortable with voting "None."

Although I can understand why one may myopically restrict themselves to believing that 'hate' is the only motivation for this action, it seems to me the closest thing we have to the wholly acceptable and standard vote of 'no confidence' allowed in many other countries... :shrus:


"You don't deserve to make desisions that affect the rest of us..."
Let's try not to pretend we know who is, or is not, deserving of the right to vote.

with a mark present in the none box, you can't add a mark later.
or with thousadns of none votes, you cant add those thousands of votes in later.....

just leaving that section of the ballot blank, which I often do? Neither can win, but it is not illegal for me to leave my ballot blank. I suppose the argument would be than in leaving it blank I am not voting for or against anyone or thing.

It is tricky in the "which rich out of touch jerk do I vote for" situations.

However, I think that a "None of the above" option should be present in ALL elections
(in all countries as well) as it is most definitely *not* the same as either leaving it blank
or staying away from the polling station - the first option facilitates electoral fraud whilst
the second means that any "protest vote" is indistinguishable from apathy.

Protest votes are an important part of democracy and it is telling that the GOP
initiative to effectively prevent such has taken another step forwards in this case.

Has been the resounding slogan of many South-American revolutions. True, they still have representative systems and political hierarchies, but we cannot but accept that revolutions are long and complex processes.

I would very much like that if the "None of the above" won the majority, none would be elected. IIRC even US constitution says something about the situation where We the People stop liking the government and believe that we would do better without...

Tell me how that squares with the Constitution?

Each state is guaranteed a number of representative proportionate to their population, and two senators. And an amendment allowing for no one to be elected would be unconstitutional too, since:

and the question was general, not just about US.

I'd be willing to consider it if "none the above" winning triggered a run-off or something similar. In fact I'm fairly sure there are some countries that do that.

Suppose you had a misogynistic racist teabagger running against an openly KKK party member and they are both convicted pedophiles. Which one would you pick? Hyperbole, sure but how about two Todd Akins running against each other?

Do you want this 20 tons of smelly disease and maggot infested manure in your front yard, or your back yard?

There is not always a good choice. There is not always even a lesser of two evils. It is rare but it could happen.

because the candidates suck? Tell me exactly how that works. Are you also going to exempt every person in that district from paying federal taxes? Will they be exempt from having to follow the laws passed by a Congress in which they had no voice?

Your solution is no solution at all. It is the mark of a tyrannical, undemocratic state that would deny representation to countless thousands of people -- or even millions, if we're talking about a senator.

As for your two hypothetical candidates: tell me where they stand on the issues. I'll pick one. At least I'll have some representative who I can lobby or protest or put pressure on. If I don't have that, who do I go to? A representative for another district? They are beholden to their constituents, not to me, because they were elected to represent their own district. Another senator? Same problem.

What happens if we apply this to the presidency? We're just going to go without a president for four years? We're going to have an empty executive branch (because the president appoints members of that branch). Who's going to sign the laws? Who's going to enforce them?

Your "rare-but-could-happen" scenario is not justification to turn a representative democracy into one in which millions are potentially denied a voice in their government. Even if it did happen where both candidates were shitty, it's not the end of the world. On the state level, you have recall elections. On the federal level, a member of Congress can be expelled -- and I have zero doubt that a convicted pedophile would be expelled on day one 99-0 in the Senate or 434-0 in the House. (State legislatures have expulsion mechanisms as well.) Executive officials and judges can be impeached.

Oh and if both major-party candidates were so unpopular that more people actually voted "none of the above" than either of them, some other candidate would undoubtedly step in and as long as they weren't totally nuts, would probably win easily. There's always five or six people running on those "Asian Cattle Ranchers For Freedom"-type party tickets.

Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 07:11 AM - Edit history (1)

didn't have a government for year or two, no harm done. People didn't mind. Not exactly same scenario, but the point.

And as for people having voice in their self-government, representative system just denies that by turning their voice into farcical ritual once in four years.

So who's going to send out the Social Security and unemployment checks? Manage Medicare and Medicaid? Or are even more poor people supposed to just do without and potentially die?

I'll take a representative with whom I disagree over no representation at all any day.

get my unemployment checks from a politician, but from a computer system and ordinary working people. And I now it's also possible to live well in relatively self-sufficient communities. But those are details. When e.g. Soviet Union collapsed and nobody was paying salaries for doctors, teachers etc., people did not stop working and doing things they considered important and valuable to other people.

I would do nothing, the people that voted would. That's what a democracy is.

It's one thing when your candidate loses and their opponent is elected. You still get representation. You still get someone to whom you can go with your issues/concerns/whatever. Even if I'm a left-winger/commie/socialist and my rep is a right-wing teabagger. You haven't addressed the issues of:

1. Just because a majority think something, doesn't mean they get to use that to tyrannize the minority.
2. What offices do we apply this to? How does it work if we have no president, which means no executive branch since the president appoints all the members of the executive branch who have any real authority?

Why would you prefer having no one elected, over having a system where "none of the above" winning forces a new election in which the original candidates are not allowed to run?

all Republicans would vote for "none of the above". Good idea.

You would rather have a terrible Representative than a do over? All "none of the above" does is tell the parties they did not provide adequate candidates and they need to do better next time. You would not be without representation for long if at all.

You don't want the voters to not elect someone but are fine with the Representatives of the other districts and or states to deny you representation?

I truly believe that overall the quality of candidates has deteriorated, and I mean both parties. I can remember when the Democrats ran great candidates and the Republicans ran good ones. Even if the Republicans won you knew things weren't going to be too bad.

Let's see, "none of the above" or "W" and two wars? Seems like an easy one to me.

Not what I said at all. In fact, I said I would be fine with a "do-over" if we allowed a "none of the above" option. What I'm not okay with is a system whereby "none of the above" is a choice and if it wins then nobody wins and the office stays vacant.

And I don't want to exempt people from paying taxes because I don't want a system that would necessitate that (allowing people to go without representation).

If you're talking about a system where "none of the above" winning means a special election is held as soon as possible after the first one (within a few months), then I am okay with that. If you're talking about a system where "none of the above" winning means people are without a senator, or representative, or governor, or president for two or four or six years then I have a big problem with that.

BTW, if it's the latter: which offices should this be implented for? Reps? Senators? How about judges or governors? The president?

held as soon as possible. I see no difference than if the position was vacated by a resignation or a death. It was never my intention to leave the position open for any extended period.

Which offices should it be implemented for? I think it would be safest to trial this on the local level for a few years to make sure there are no problems. On the local level it would also have the side benefit of keeping the undesirable candidates from getting a foot hold in the system. If they don't get in at the ground level, it would be harder for them to move up to higher office.

If the voters aren't the State, then who is?

Tell me: which state is going to consent to having its equal suffrage in the Senate denied? It would never happen and if it did I'd stay far away from a state that with enough idiots to elect enough legislators to do it.

It seems everyone has a different definition of democracy. Yes, yes I know what a republic is, we don't need to go there for this discussion.

What it seems to boil down to is my view of democracy is that the voter has the ultimate power. I know it is much more complicated than this, but very simply, what the majority say and want as long as it doesn't harm anyone or limit anyone's freedoms, should be the final word. You can not take away a voter representation, unless you take away their right to vote. The voters represents themselves.

Would taking away a person's Representative hurt the people in the minority that wanted someone? Would it be any worse than being stuck with the person you didn't vote for? For me the choice between a teabagger or no one, I'll take no one.

There are times that I would have voted for "none of the above" but so far just on the local level. But I live in a fairly liberal area even if it is only slightly purple. Our Republicans for the most part are pretty moderate.

elected that many dumb legislators is a state I would avoid at all costs. I think there are very few people dumb enough to actually deny themselves representation.

We don't live in a direct democracy; we live in a representative democracy. That requires representatives who speak on behalf of the people who elect them. If people are denied a representative, then they have no voice in the government.

Your caveat is what kills this idea. Not having representation in the government does limit people's rights, some of the most basic ones in a representative democracy. The majority don't get to do whatever they want just because they're the majority.

Yes, it would be worse than being stuck with the person you didn't vote for. A lot worse. I'll take a right-wing teabagger over no representation in my government any day of the week. And then I'll work my ass off to get them defeated in the next election. That's how a democratic government works.

If "none of the above" wins, then we ought to be exempt from following laws and paying federal taxes passed by the Congress in which we have no representation, right?

Why would you choose having no representation in your government instead of supporting a system whereby if "none of the above" wins then a new election is called and the original candidates cannot run?

I've done it more times than I can count when there's no candidate on the ballot I can stomach (whenever Feinstein is up for re-election, as an example). Living in an overwhelmingly conservative area, it isn't unusual to be faced with a ballot that places a hard-right Democrat against a hard-right Republican. When that happens, I vote Odie.

is most popular cartoon write-in in Finland, Odie is great unknown for me. Spiders and church boats (dozen or more oars) are also ever popular write-in candidates.

lizard people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lizard_People.png