A radical idea

[Boxlicker101]

How does this sound for voting? It can never happen, of course, but the results would be interesting:

The ballots include the names of all qualified candidates and each one offers two choices, for or against. Voters all vote once, either for a candidate or against a candidate, but not both. In other words, if I despise The Donald enough, I can vote against him, but that would be the only vote I could cast. If somebody sees Silly Hilly as a disaster, that voter can vote against her, but not for anybody. The winner would be the candidate with the highest net favorable votes.

Think of it! Imagine a major party candidate getting a negative number of votes because he or she is so disliked and distrusted. Voting against a candidate would give a much clearer indication of a voter's opinion of that candidate. People would no longer vote against A by voting for B, because they could simply vote against A rather than vote for somebody they might consider almost as bad.

Of course, this could never be allowed to happen, because it would let voters express their real opinions, which is something political bosses could not tolerate.

 

[JackLuis]

How does this sound for voting? It can never happen, of course, but the results would be interesting:

The ballots include the names of all qualified candidates and each one offers two choices, for or against. Voters all vote once, either for a candidate or against a candidate, but not both. In other words, if I despise The Donald enough, I can vote against him, but that would be the only vote I could cast. If somebody sees Silly Hilly as a disaster, that voter can vote against her, but not for anybody. The winner would be the candidate with the highest net favorable votes.

Think of it! Imagine a major party candidate getting a negative number of votes because he or she is so disliked and distrusted. Voting against a candidate would give a much clearer indication of a voter's opinion of that candidate. People would no longer vote against A by voting for B, because they could simply vote against A rather than vote for somebody they might consider almost as bad.

Of course, this could never be allowed to happen, because it would let voters express their real opinions, which is something political bosses could not tolerate.

One good thing might happen, Congress might only have six members and think of the money we'd save!

 

[underguy1]

Wouldn't it just be easier to have a "None of the above" box?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wouldn't it just be easier to have a "None of the above" box?

Ye, but it wouldn't be as meaningful. Under my idea, a voter would express special disdain for one particular candidate rather than a general and rather smart-alecky dislike of everybody.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

How does this sound for voting? It can never happen, of course, but the results would be interesting:

The ballots include the names of all qualified candidates and each one offers two choices, for or against. Voters all vote once, either for a candidate or against a candidate, but not both. In other words, if I despise The Donald enough, I can vote against him, but that would be the only vote I could cast. If somebody sees Silly Hilly as a disaster, that voter can vote against her, but not for anybody. The winner would be the candidate with the highest net favorable votes.

Think of it! Imagine a major party candidate getting a negative number of votes because he or she is so disliked and distrusted. Voting against a candidate would give a much clearer indication of a voter's opinion of that candidate. People would no longer vote against A by voting for B, because they could simply vote against A rather than vote for somebody they might consider almost as bad.

Of course, this could never be allowed to happen, because it would let voters express their real opinions, which is something political bosses could not tolerate.

Pull your head outta your ass and dream up what will work.

 

[patient1]

Ye, but it wouldn't be as meaningful. Under my idea, a voter would express special disdain for one particular candidate rather than a general and rather smart-alecky dislike of everybody.

It has a delicious advantage over the present system, when you count AGAINST votes, nobody can claim a personal mandate when they got elected just because their opponent was facing class action suits for fraud, or under investigation by the FBI!

Frankly, I'd prefer to see an established 3rd party to force the campaign to be about issues instead of candidates.

 

[sr71plt]

You'd have to get rid of the Electoral College system too. That's what decides elections in the United States.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You'd have to get rid of the Electoral College system too. That's what decides elections in the United States.

That would require a Constitutional amendment, unlike changing the makeup of ballots, which would be a state decision.

 

[sr71plt]

That would require a Constitutional amendment, unlike changing the makeup of ballots, which would be a state decision.

Umm, what part of the Electoral College is actually going to be doing the official voting don't you understand? And they can vote for Elmer Fudd, if they want to. They certainly wouldn't make heads or tails out of the jumble you propose.

 

[patient1]

You'd have to get rid of the Electoral College system too. That's what decides elections in the United States.

Well now that we've entered the post-journalism social media era, and the campaigns can be extended to rural areas more cost effectively than on horseback, it probably is time to do that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Umm, what part of the Electoral College is actually going to be doing the official voting don't you understand? And they can vote for Elmer Fudd, if they want to. They certainly wouldn't make heads or tails out of the jumble you propose.

There would be no change in who does the actual voting and how they are chosen. I know the electors can vote for whomever they please, and sometimes somebody does vote contrary to the commitment that has been made. That would not change.

I don't see any problem in their figuring out for whom to cast ballots. The ticket with the highest net vote total (For minus against) would be the winner.

This year especially, a third party candidate might be the winner in some states. There is less dislike for them, so they would get positive votes. Both the major party candidates are so disliked their net votes in favor could be fewer than those of somebody such as the Libertarian candidate.

 

[Liar]

That would require a Constitutional amendment, unlike changing the makeup of ballots, which would be a state decision.

Not really.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

[Boxlicker101]

Not really.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

The Electoral College is written into the Constitution, and under the proposal you cited, the electors would still vote in it and they would be the deciders. I have some doubt it would be legal for those states and DC to conspire to flout the wishes of the voters in those places.

 

[sr71plt]

I have some doubt it would be legal for those states and DC to conspire to flout the wishes of the voters in those places.

Umm, no, there's nothing illegal in an official elector flouting the wishes of the voters. The issue, though, is that the voting you propose is too convoluted for the electors to decipher.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Umm, no, there's nothing illegal in an official elector flouting the wishes of the voters. The issue, though, is that the voting you propose is too convoluted for the electors to decipher.

The question has never arisen. Once in a while, an individual elector will vote contrary to the wishes of the voters but, since this has never changed the outcome of the election, nothing official ever happened. However, if the members of some state legislatures were to decide to act contrary to the clearly expressed wishes of the voters in those states, there might be legal repercussions. I said "there might," not "there would."

I hope you don't think the electors actually inspect ballots to decide how to vote. This is done at a much lower level than that.

 

[JackLuis]

Maybe the idea would work in the primaries? maybe we put a "Negative Vote" choice on the ballot and people could vote for the candidate of their choosing and check "Oh Hell NO!" on the assholes that get into the race because the press doesn't vet the candidates, but just tries to make them say stupid shit to sell advertising?

Maybe we should have a negative poll on Talking heads every week. So on Sunday you get on the net and yes or no on each of the talking heads. Those with the lowest numbers take a pay cut until they have positive numbers. It might improve the fourth estate.

 

[phrodeau]

The Electoral College ballots get counted by Congress. They can choose to ignore the ballots of faithless electors, since those don't represent the will of the people.

This almost happened in 2004 with Ohio's electors. Those weren't faithless, but there were concerns of hacking their Diebold machines.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

How does this sound for voting? It can never happen, of course, but the results would be interesting:

The ballots include the names of all qualified candidates and each one offers two choices, for or against. Voters all vote once, either for a candidate or against a candidate, but not both. In other words, if I despise The Donald enough, I can vote against him, but that would be the only vote I could cast. If somebody sees Silly Hilly as a disaster, that voter can vote against her, but not for anybody. The winner would be the candidate with the highest net favorable votes.

Think of it! Imagine a major party candidate getting a negative number of votes because he or she is so disliked and distrusted. Voting against a candidate would give a much clearer indication of a voter's opinion of that candidate. People would no longer vote against A by voting for B, because they could simply vote against A rather than vote for somebody they might consider almost as bad.

Of course, this could never be allowed to happen, because it would let voters express their real opinions, which is something political bosses could not tolerate.

You spelled stupid wrong. It's not spelled r-a-d-i-c-a-l.