T Nation

None of the Above

Contrary to what most of you think, I am not a Hillary fan. I think it would be a tremendous disservice to the voters for her to win her party’s primary and become candidate for the democratic party. There is no way I could or would ever vote for her. And I’m sure many conservatives feel the same way about their choice of candidates.

For this reason, I think the voters should be given a third choice during the primaries;

_____ None of the Above.

Should a majority of the voters pick this option, then the parties have to come up with new candidates and the previous candidates must bow out.

No more choosing the lesser of two evils. Yes, it could make things really drag out, but it may also get more people to vote and express their disgust with this horribly broken system.

We need another option.

I’ve already discussed this oprion with people and I must say I like it.

The flow of a two party goverment system may be an indicator of relative political stability, but let’s be honest. After a while, people simply get sick of being fed one lie after another and simply vote for change. Details, like taxes, smaller government etc. go all down in favor of emotional topics like abortion. And above all, the masses just wants a change.
So then a new band of thugs gets elected and tries to maintain power as long as possible. Then, after 5-20 years, the cycle repeats itself.

When the aristocracy of a stubborn nation like Poland or Scandinavia came together in the middle ages to elect a new king, this could take months, sometimes even a year until everyone was satisfied. There was no “just vote and congratulate your new leader”.

Clearly, a modern democracy deserves more then this joke of an election system.

TINA.

When voters have the option of flushing everybody and trying again, they may keep voting “Nobody” in a vain search for that one ‘perfect’ candidate.

Depending on what minimum standards for victory were set, you would possibly end up with either a seemingly interminable election (which only ends when some authority tells the electorate “These are your last two choices, now decide!”) or a non-negligible chance that a radical becomes POTUS.

Winners in our system almost always get at least 40%. Under this new system, they would probably rarely get even that high, leading to even more widespread dissatisfaction.

The system we have does not give us a wide range of choices, but it also prevents a dangerous fringe radical from winning office.

Developing a viable third party would probably be a better solution than allowing a “N.O.T.A.” selection on the ballot.

[quote]lixy wrote:
TINA.[/quote]

What is TINA?

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
TINA.

What is TINA?[/quote]

There Is No Alternative.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
TINA.

What is TINA?[/quote]

It’s Lixy’s pick for the Democratic Party candidate.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
TINA.

What is TINA?

It’s Lixy’s pick for the Democratic Party candidate.[/quote]

Haha, I like this answer better!

Not gonna happen since so many people will reflexively pick whoever their party throws up there, afraid of “the other team” scoring should they fail to toe the party line.


This chap seems descent. Write him in folks.

As I’ve seen on bumperstickers:

Cthulhu 2008 - why vote for a lesser evil?

In place of a donkey or elephant, it’s an octopus (of course) with tentacles.

There are a couple democracies in South / Central America that have a rule that an elected official must garner some substantial voter percent. If none do, then it’s back to the drawing board.

[quote]lixy wrote:
RALPH 08
This chap seems descent. Write him in folks.[/quote]

Well the world has just been subjected to 7 years of Ralph`s cousin. Ralph would be a step up.