Quantcast

Should there be a none of the above in this years election ?

Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru 2012/04/25 04:28:19
Related Topics: Election
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Ashley<3Sierra 2012/05/07 19:35:03
    No
    Ashley<3Sierra
    No, but they should definitely kick Obama out. "No, no, you don't need to run again, you've caused enough trouble."
  • Crime Time 2012/04/26 03:34:57
  • Pat 2012/04/26 01:40:17
    No
    Pat
    No, a president WILL be elected whether you make choice or not. I would rather have a say, no matter what the choices are, rather than let other people make my choice for me.
  • Mercenary2728 2012/04/26 01:33:21
    No
    Mercenary2728
    Just Dont Go
  • Tony 2012/04/26 00:34:08
    Yes
    Tony
    There should have been a "none of the above" option in the last 5 elections
  • Medulla Oblongata 2012/04/26 00:33:46
    No
    Medulla Oblongata
    Don't ballots already have a write-in choice? That's like saying "none of the above" right there.
  • jimbo999 2012/04/26 00:25:40
    No
    jimbo999
    I want to get rid of Obama-lama-ding-dong.
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/04/26 00:18:24
    No
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    No, This is a very serious time in the nation and people, whether they know it or not, will be deciding if they want an America that is free, and where people can reach great success or an America that looks like Greece.
  • Ken 2012/04/26 00:15:13
    No
    Ken
    +1
    As long as someone besides Obama is on the ballot.
  • Welshtaff 2012/04/25 23:39:42
    Yes
    Welshtaff
    Good idea but we would end up with Obama for another 4 years and that wouldn't be good.
  • MissGates 2012/04/25 23:02:12
    No
    MissGates
    Just put a checkmark beside every single name on the list..
  • **Southern Man** 2012/04/25 20:53:52
  • Rebecca 2012/04/25 19:03:34
    Yes
    Rebecca
    But that would be pointless.
  • Tank 2012/04/25 16:53:09 (edited)
    Yes
    Tank
    Though you can in effect already do that. Not choosing a person on the ballot paper and instead leaving it blank or writing something else (e.g a fringe candidate, made up name, political message) on it is a recognised sign of protest, so there doesn't neccessarily need to be a 'none of the above' option, as you can already do this. It is known as a blank vote, or a protest vote, among other things.

    Though I strongly advise everyone to vote for SOMEONE, wether it be the person that you like the most or hate the least, otherwise your vote will not count, and be effectively wasted (unless of course enough people handed in blank/unticked papers, or papers with enough of the same fringe candidate written on, which I doubt is going to happen, though even then, they'd still just go for the person with the most votes. All it would likely do is show the government that the people are not happy with their options, though I doubt they'd do much about it).
  • Kat 2012/04/25 16:24:57
    Yes
    Kat
    When your choices are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. it would be nice to be able to say NO WAY!
  • Linnster 2012/04/25 15:46:53
    Yes
    Linnster
    Most definitely.
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/04/25 13:47:25
    Yes
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    Now *this* is an excellent question.

    Here is how my "None of the Above" Presidential ballot would work:

    Each State would have its own citizens' committee, all the citizens' own, which would nominate a slate of elector-candidates who would be UNCOMMITTED to the then-current Presidential candidates. That way, when you voted for that slate, you'd be voting, not for a man or woman to be President (and a man or woman to be Vice-President), but for a number of men and women, some of whom might even be your neighbors (who knows?), who would make up their own minds between then and December 18 (the Electoral College meeting date). They might hold hearings. They might charter a plane or a bus, and barnstorm the State asking for your opinions. They might hold "hearings" and call any candidates before them.

    And then they would vote. And they might just vote to throw the Presidential election to the House of Representatives, by delivering all their votes to a "third candidate."

    The trouble would be: whoever won the Presidency would get stuck with whoever the Senate picked for Vice-President, between the top two vote-getters.

    Not a perfect solution. But it's the best way that your "None of the Above" idea could work.

    You cannot merely write in a Presidential candidate's name. At a Pr...
    Now *this* is an excellent question.

    Here is how my "None of the Above" Presidential ballot would work:

    Each State would have its own citizens' committee, all the citizens' own, which would nominate a slate of elector-candidates who would be UNCOMMITTED to the then-current Presidential candidates. That way, when you voted for that slate, you'd be voting, not for a man or woman to be President (and a man or woman to be Vice-President), but for a number of men and women, some of whom might even be your neighbors (who knows?), who would make up their own minds between then and December 18 (the Electoral College meeting date). They might hold hearings. They might charter a plane or a bus, and barnstorm the State asking for your opinions. They might hold "hearings" and call any candidates before them.

    And then they would vote. And they might just vote to throw the Presidential election to the House of Representatives, by delivering all their votes to a "third candidate."

    The trouble would be: whoever won the Presidency would get stuck with whoever the Senate picked for Vice-President, between the top two vote-getters.

    Not a perfect solution. But it's the best way that your "None of the Above" idea could work.

    You cannot merely write in a Presidential candidate's name. At a Presidential "election," the people elect *electors*. So you need a slate of elector-candidates. I know of no State willing to designate a slate of elector-candidates and instruct them to vote for the write-in candidate, should such a candidate "win."
    (more)
  • Cricket 2012/04/25 12:58:12
    Yes
    Cricket
    +1
    I'm very disappointed.
  • RobHom 2012/04/25 12:08:49
    Yes
    RobHom
    +1
    There should have been a "NOTA" choice in every election since day one!!
  • Lady Wh... RobHom 2012/04/25 12:51:35
    Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    AGREED!!!!
  • RobHom Lady Wh... 2012/04/25 23:43:19
    RobHom
    +1
    OOOOOHHHHRRRAAAAHHH! You know, back in 1994...when I was living in Daytona Beach...I wrote a letter to the paper about "NOTA".....and I actually got "death threats"!!
  • Lady Wh... RobHom 2012/04/26 00:29:09
    Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    Really? That's sad!
  • RobHom Lady Wh... 2012/04/26 02:19:27
    RobHom
    +1
    Yep...but hey...I thought it was kind of interesting. No-one ever bothered though.
  • Temlako... RobHom 2012/04/25 13:51:11
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    Actually, the very first Presidential election was an appointment of uncommitted electors. They just happened to pick George Washington because everybody knew and loved him.

    The practice of parties nominating slates of elector-candidates began with the Election of 1800. Disaster befell the country: Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr finished with seventy-three votes each. On to the House!

    What it's going to take, is every State changing its election laws to stop the practice of voting for "electors for such-a-candidate." Instead, electors should run for the office of Presidential Elector under their own names. Then if you want to have write-in votes, you'd be writing in the names of elector-candidates. Now *that* would work.
  • RobHom Temlako... 2012/04/25 23:51:00
    RobHom
    +1
    You get a GOLD Star!! You actually bothered to pay attention in US History!! Yep, George was King of the Hill...in fact they even wanted to make him "King"...but he refused and stated that the nation would have no King or royalty! He accepted the Presidency kind of under duress...they wouldn't let him avoud it.

    Back in the 1800's as the country expanded westward...the Electoral College was formed...and that is when it all started getting very hinky. Back then it was justified because it took a long time for the mule to walk from Ohio or Kentucky to Washington DC and deliver the votes.

    I honestly believe that the only solution is: Total elimination of the Electoral College, and the imposition of "the candidate who gets the most votes wins". Forget what state they come from....its all about who gets the most votes.

    And I sincerely believe that a mandatory NOTA choice for every elected position in every election should be mandatory...because it would prevent the two major parties from serving up a pair of bozos and making us choose between the "lesser of two evils"!
  • Temlako... RobHom 2012/04/26 01:29:52
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    Here's the problem: if you remove the Electoral College, you also remove any role that the States have, and push them further into the role of mere provinces. And do you know what a province is? It is a conquered region. ("Pro-" in place of, and "vincere" to conquer.)

    Better to tell people to run for the job of Elector in their own names, and not in the names of any specific candidates.
  • RobHom Temlako... 2012/04/26 02:22:18
    RobHom
    That is a possibility. But, there needs to be a way to prevent the loser (he or she with the fewest votes) from winning, and the one with the largest number of popular votes losing.

    Then again...the requirement for a NOTA choice on all ballots would fix much, because then the parties would have to actually put up better candidates or get slapped down...
  • Earthly Resident 2012/04/25 12:06:12 (edited)
    Yes
    Earthly Resident
    +1
    sounds like a damn good idea to me
  • BeautifulSoul 2012/04/25 11:31:05
    Yes
    BeautifulSoul
    +1
    The candidates suck!!
  • Veteran Gunner 2012/04/25 06:49:46
    No
    Veteran Gunner
    Sorry thats dumb.
  • munda 2012/04/25 06:15:16
    Yes
    munda
    +1
    There is always write in but there should be a no vote option as well.
  • Reichstolz 2012/04/25 06:10:54
    Yes
    Reichstolz
    +1
    For every seat, federal, state, local, and town should have a vote of no confidence category where if that category gains the most vote that position is eliminated. That position could only be brought back with a majority vote of the electorate in the next election.
  • POWERSHAKER 2012/04/25 06:08:13
  • Red_Horse 2012/04/25 05:50:19
  • Reichstolz Red_Horse 2012/04/25 06:11:43
    Reichstolz
    +1
    When they consistently fail to do things right, what is the point of getting them done?
  • Red_Horse Reichstolz 2012/04/25 06:20:42
  • Reichstolz Red_Horse 2012/04/25 13:42:05
    Reichstolz
    +3
    I recommend removing every incumbent every election cycle, until at least they realize politics is service not a career.
  • Red_Horse Reichstolz 2012/04/25 15:23:30
  • RobHom Reichstolz 2012/04/25 23:52:01
    RobHom
    +1
    Yeah!! That's the spirit!!
  • Fef 2012/04/25 05:43:12
    No
    Fef
    +1
    Only so the Democrats don't have to vote for Obama since they won't vote bipartisan.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Fun

2014/04/17 10:15:20

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals