For the 20 to 30% of you who are not voting for either candidate....

[Colonel Hogan]

....which now includes ME!!

Would we not be sending the best possible message if we could agree on a write in candidate? And by that I don't even mean someone who would actually BE a capable President and still had no chance to actually get elected. We couldn't agree on that person anyway.

I'm talking about a national campaign for a "no confidence" vote that categorically rejects ALL Presidential candidates currently on the ballot.

If we could somehow unify around such a proposition, I don't think it would be quite the meaningless gesture many would try to dismiss it as.

That many people from the political middle rejecting the political fringe on both right and left would have to send a message.

 

[jezzilee]

Me

Write me in... Jezzi for Prezzie!

 

[Bert Notorius]

i just saw
joe biden
kicking his own ass
down the street.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Write me in... Jezzi for Prezzie!

As tempting as that is, I'm serious about this. No one wants to "waste their vote" on a third party candidate, and many mainstream Republicans are going to write in many of those candidates defeated in the Republican primaries, and many Sanders voters are going to write in Bernie.

I think my idea is stronger.

But if you want to run for something else, I'd probably wear your button and put up a yard sign.

 

[Que]

there was an election where the logistics were such that I physically could not vote because of not planning ahead sufficiently in advance. This very well might be the first election ever that I'm simply going to sit out. I possibly might not ever bother to vote again in my entire life.

If I got started right now I could probably change my registration or simply decide to take the day off and make a 600-mile round trip to my polling station, or possibly find a way to retrieve my missing ballot because my post office box got in advertently closed. But I can't really see jumping through the Hoops to vote for any of these candidates. I do like your idea though.

It would require a constitutional amendment but I would like to have every ballot have a box for none of the above and if none of the above actually wins we have to have a new election.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Her Royal Majesty, Queen Jezzi. Or perhaps due to size, diversity, and population of the US, Empress!

 

[silver gurl]

I will probably write in Bernie.

 

[jezzilee]

Her Royal Majesty, Queen Jezzi. Or perhaps due to size, diversity, and population of the US, Empress!

At first I thought you were gonna say I was too fat to be the queen... :/

I do not really want to lead anything..

Colonel I have a pin for you, I will take a picture of it later and post it!

 

[Hard_Rom]

At first I thought you were gonna say I was too fat to be the queen... :/

I do not really want to lead anything..

Colonel I have a pin for you, I will take a picture of it later and post it!

You reign not rule. Ride around in a golden carriage and wave royally at your adoring subjects. Most you do is advise your first minister. Easy peasy.

 

[Comshaw]

....which now includes ME!!

Would we not be sending the best possible message if we could agree on a write in candidate? And by that I don't even mean someone who would actually BE a capable President and still had no chance to actually get elected. We couldn't agree on that person anyway.

I'm talking about a national campaign for a "no confidence" vote that categorically rejects ALL Presidential candidates currently on the ballot.

If we could somehow unify around such a proposition, I don't think it would be quite the meaningless gesture many would try to dismiss it as.

That many people from the political middle rejecting the political fringe on both right and left would have to send a message.

Normally I would agree with you. But this isn't a normal election. If I had the choice of a Republican candidate I couldn't agree with and a Democratic candidate I couldn't agree with but both were qualified for the office I'd find a third party and vote for them. Again, this time that isn't the case. This time you have a qualified candidate who isn't likable and people don't trust, but will keep things running, OR a crazy sumbitch who will do everything in his power to feather his own nest and will burn the house down the first time he gets insulted by someone. This time you have the choice of the good ol' boy politician or the arsonist. The choices: bad or fucking crazy. I'll take the bad. We should be able to survive that, but we won't survive the CMF.

Comshaw

 

[Que]

I will probably write in Bernie.

Actually, if there were sufficient polling to suggest that Bernie could pull off an upset in this entire election with a massive write-in campaign I might drive 600 miles to participate in that. Just for its historic appeal.

I mean can you imagine an actual socialist for our president? It would be the first honest face on the Democratic party and of course none of his kooky ideas would go anywhere because there is no legislative support for anything he suggests.

I also have a grudging respect for him because I think he's a man of integrity. I think he believes what he talks about and I think he thinks he can do the things that he talks about doing even though the math doesn't work.

that isn't unique to him so I don't see why that should be disqualifying people on the right and the left are consistently promising things that we definitely can't afford.

 

[Que]

Also, if Johnson looks like he might at least scrabble his way up towards Perot numbers I'll head out towards Ish.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Pssst Bernie wants you to vote for Hillary.

 

[sharingfantasies]

....which now includes ME!!

Would we not be sending the best possible message if we could agree on a write in candidate? And by that I don't even mean someone who would actually BE a capable President and still had no chance to actually get elected. We couldn't agree on that person anyway.

I'm talking about a national campaign for a "no confidence" vote that categorically rejects ALL Presidential candidates currently on the ballot.

If we could somehow unify around such a proposition, I don't think it would be quite the meaningless gesture many would try to dismiss it as.

That many people from the political middle rejecting the political fringe on both right and left would have to send a message.

I have been wanting a no confidence line for decades. I think that the American people should be able to say no to the candidates and send the parties back to try again. I have been reading some articles that say that the RNC is considering retracting Trump as their candidate and finding someone else to put on the ballot instead. But they are running into timeline issues as some states have already started accepting mail-in ballots. I wouldn't mind if the election was pushed off until later just to have new candidates. However, there was also mention in the same articles that Pence would be their idea of a new person, and I would end up voting no confidence for him also. So, as much as I like the idea, I don't know how the reality would work out.

 

[silver gurl]

I actually believe in his words. Out of all of them, I believe he the most honest.
Socialist, I understand why people will not ever go for the that. But being in Canada, it is not all that bad. Health care does suck though.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It would require a constitutional amendment but I would like to have every ballot have a box for none of the above and if none of the above actually wins we have to have a new election.

The "have a new election" part would certainly require a Constitutional amendment, but not just having a "no confidence" ballot choice. If even a third or more states got behind that idea it could eventually transform our political system.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Normally I would agree with you. But this isn't a normal election. If I had the choice of a Republican candidate I couldn't agree with and a Democratic candidate I couldn't agree with but both were qualified for the office I'd find a third party and vote for them. Again, this time that isn't the case. This time you have a qualified candidate who isn't likable and people don't trust, but will keep things running, OR a crazy sumbitch who will do everything in his power to feather his own nest and will burn the house down the first time he gets insulted by someone. This time you have the choice of the good ol' boy politician or the arsonist. The choices: bad or fucking crazy. I'll take the bad. We should be able to survive that, but we won't survive the CMF.

Comshaw

You make a very good point, but even though your logic is sound, there is no reason NOT to have the "none of the above" option during any election.

Yeah, we will soon have survived Obama, too, as I was pretty sure we would, but that doesn't argue against being able to affirmatively reject ALL candidates. It is a far more demonstrative exercise than simply NOT voting which can be misconstrued as disinterest, inclement weather at various polling locations and other factors.

ESPECIALLY in an election like this where both candidates are widely disrespected, the ability to reflect that disrespect and dissatisfaction would seem to be needed NOW more than ever.

 

[Que]

The "have a new election" part would certainly require a Constitutional amendment, but not just having a "no confidence" ballot choice. If even a third or more states got behind that idea it could eventually transform our political system.

One thing that would help the entire political process a lot would be to go back to having individual State legislatures appoint the senators.

it would provide an immediate feedback loop to keep Senators constantly in mind of the fact that they actually represent the state that they come from not the Washington DC crowd that they quickly ingratiate themselves into. If they knew that at a moment's notice than the state legislature could call a meeting and they would be on the plane home the next day would be wonderful.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Excellent

"I have come here to make it as clear as possible why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president," Sanders said at a joint rally here. "Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination and I congratulate her for that."

The 74-year-old self-described democratic socialist, who has been a thorn in Clinton's side over the last year, pledged to support his former rival through Election Day: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...inton-bernie-sanders/index.html?client=safari

 

[Ishmael]

....which now includes ME!!

Would we not be sending the best possible message if we could agree on a write in candidate? And by that I don't even mean someone who would actually BE a capable President and still had no chance to actually get elected. We couldn't agree on that person anyway.

I'm talking about a national campaign for a "no confidence" vote that categorically rejects ALL Presidential candidates currently on the ballot.

If we could somehow unify around such a proposition, I don't think it would be quite the meaningless gesture many would try to dismiss it as.

That many people from the political middle rejecting the political fringe on both right and left would have to send a message.

Noble idea Col., but someone is going to fill that void no matter how small the vote.

This is one of the few notions that you've put forth that I don't think you've thought through well. In its ultimate expression it would only take one vote to elect a president. Ridiculous? Of course, but I hope I made my point via the absurd.

But your point is well taken. To think that a once great nation has been reduced to the choices before us.

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

One thing that would help the entire political process a lot would be to go back to having individual State legislatures appoint the senators.

it would provide an immediate feedback loop to keep Senators constantly in mind of the fact that they actually represent the state that they come from not the Washington DC crowd that they quickly ingratiate themselves into. If they knew that at a moment's notice than the state legislature could call a meeting and they would be on the plane home the next day would be wonderful.

Have to disagree with that one vehemently. A politician being directly answerable to another political body, either of his own or the opposition party, is far too incestuous for my taste. I like the idea of knowing that, as an elected official, you unarguably represent people who did not vote for you. You still owe them. And they are well within their right to let you know it whenever they wish.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Excellent





https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...inton-bernie-sanders/index.html?client=safari

Total 180 from what he was singing before HRC and the DNC conspired to fuck him as hard as possible.

 

[cleaver]

....which now includes ME!!

Would we not be sending the best possible message if we could agree on a write in candidate? And by that I don't even mean someone who would actually BE a capable President and still had no chance to actually get elected. We couldn't agree on that person anyway.

I'm talking about a national campaign for a "no confidence" vote that categorically rejects ALL Presidential candidates currently on the ballot.

If we could somehow unify around such a proposition, I don't think it would be quite the meaningless gesture many would try to dismiss it as.

That many people from the political middle rejecting the political fringe on both right and left would have to send a message.

Write me in... Jezzi for Prezzie!

and so... in a nutshell
the very crux of such a proposition...

whilst many serious folk of similar disposition
(on both sides of the aisle)
rue the upcoming obligation to vote...
some way...

the relatively "comfortable" immediate social fabric
that envelopes this seemingly horrid choice
enables the immediately comfortable
the liberty to approach the op's question with frivolity first...

i'd say yes, colonel hogan...
an absolutely instructive and viable option
to vote for "none of the above"
in the name of a bernie...
or even a jeb...

the pyrrhic vote would send some sort of a message...

the real question then becomes
who
of the two actual contenders
would you most expect to recognize the gravity of such a vote?

and further...

who
of those who might vote n-o-t-a
(in whatever name)
would understand the actual gravity
of that very broad message sent?

this is not a system that is used to dealing with a "vote of little confidence"

(except perhaps, 2 years hence... in congressional elections?)

hmmmmmm.... much to digest in what you pose...
...if approached seriously.

i won't be voting "look-at-me"!

it's more important this time.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Noble idea Col., but someone is going to fill that void no matter how small the vote.

This is one of the few notions that you've put forth that I don't think you've thought through well. In its ultimate expression it would only take one vote to elect a president. Ridiculous? Of course, but I hope I made my point via the absurd.

But your point is well taken. To think that a once great nation has been reduced to the choices before us.

Ishmael

My idea is not to "fill the void" or overthrow the inevitable relative power of the two party system. It is simply to offer a mechanism to disrupt it a little when it drastically, as now, screams for disruption.

That's actually what Trump has managed to do with his candidacy, and many find that alone enormously appealing.

I'd just like to be able to return the favor -- but not just AT him, but HRC as well. She's hardly an innocent victim in this melodrama.

 

[snugglestruggle]

....which now includes ME!!

Would we not be sending the best possible message if we could agree on a write in candidate? And by that I don't even mean someone who would actually BE a capable President and still had no chance to actually get elected. We couldn't agree on that person anyway.

I'm talking about a national campaign for a "no confidence" vote that categorically rejects ALL Presidential candidates currently on the ballot.

If we could somehow unify around such a proposition, I don't think it would be quite the meaningless gesture many would try to dismiss it as.

That many people from the political middle rejecting the political fringe on both right and left would have to send a message.

Since I'm one of those middle people (I), I'll tell you what I think. It's the fault of the American people for only voting for their team (D) or (R) instead of the most qualified. That partisan crap is what brought us to this point.

I like your idea but don't think enough people quite understand how F*ed up Washington has become (again my team good, your team is the problem mentality).


I don't care if Trump is an ego driven asshole or sexist, he isn't as big of a liar as Hillary. He hasn't sold his soul to WS bankers, the Saudi's or Soros and the open borders crowd.

Washington has become so corrupt that it's going to take an outsider like Trump to burn it all down (assuming he will/can, I hope he does) to make people realize status quo is no longer an option.