North Dakota allows people to vote "none of the above". New Hampshire is maybe going to allow this as well. The reasoning is that our gov is based on informed consent & this would allow is to withhold out consent instead of picking the least bad.
But additionally they need a "No f'in way" option as well. Mean, not only do I not like the choices, I don't consider them choices in the first place."
Because the voter gets to inform those running that they are both unacceptable instead of someone thinking they have been validated bec of a choice between two"evils". It would hopefully inspire better candidates to jump into the fray.
No voting machine or system that I know of requires that every single office be voted upon. So it would seem that this law is superfluous. I have left offices with no vote in the past when I don't know which candidate to vote for.
I like the thought, but I think it would lead to a continuance issue. how would it work if we repeatedly said "none of the above?" the current representatives would be in office for life.
I would personally prefer a representative system where instead of 1 person reps a whole area despite only having say 57% support, that we went to a method were any size group choose a person to rep them with 100% support and that persons vote
Interesting idea, but it could get a bit unwieldy. Does each rep get a government salary? How much support is required to represent any percentage? If a minority falls below the threshold, do they just not get a representative?
Unwieldy and likely never to be done. But id say if 1000 agree on someone to rep them then that person gets 1000 "shares" of the total vote. Ditto if its 500k or just 5. Point is that the rep provides 100% representation for those he reps
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment