Voting "NO" on [Candidate]

[Badnon Wissenshaftler]

What if it were an option to vote "NO" for someone?

I received a circular, the other day, instructing me to vote "NO" on Mark Kelly. (In Az, the Mark Kelly-Martha McSally race for US Senate is of national interest.)

I'd thought of this before, to a degree, but gave it further thought recently.

What if voting "NO" were an option, meaning you could either vote for someone or against someone. In the Kelly-McSally race, it's a lesser-of-two-evils argument. I don't care for McSally. There is nothing truly appealing about her or her policies (?) or record. But she's a little better than Kelly, who will be a gun-grabbing goon, doubtless.

Of course, if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still voted for evil.

SO, in this case, I'd rather vote "NO" on Mark Kelly. (There were no remotely viable third options)

What would the implications be for this voting protocol? That is, if you were to vote "NO" for someone, it would cancel someone's "YES" vote, and if there were no more "YES" votes, negative votes would be tallied. The outcomes are as follows:

1. Both candidates receive positive votes, then the outcome is as always.
2. One candidate receives negative votes, and he or she is finished.
3. Both receive negative votes.

In the third case, it is obvious that the populace doesn't want either of the candidates in the contested position. In that case, the race must be rebooted! The prior candidates are disqualified, and (hopefully) more palatable candidates are given a chance to run. Of course, this may go on for some time, or an eternity, but I already see it as an infinitely more desirable system.

Thoughts?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I’ve been partial to a none of the above option.

The establishment loves to screw AZ. Always a lesser of two evils. Martha McSally is one of the worst, yet the establishment continues to push her because she is a neocon/MIC tool. Then they put her up against Mark Kelly, a gun grabbing, China loving globalist who is also likely a neocon/MIC tool. Most voters are ignorant, but AZ has more than their share.

 

[Suzanimal]

I’ve been partial to a none of the above option.

The establishment loves to screw AZ. Always a lesser of two evils. Martha McSally is one of the worst, yet the establishment continues to push her because she is a neocon/MIC tool. Then they put her up against Mark Kelly, a gun grabbing, China loving globalist who is also likely a neocon/MIC tool. Most voters are ignorant, but AZ has more than their share.

I would vote for that.

 

[Dr.3D]

I would vote for that.

So would I.

 

[Badnon Wissenshaftler]

I’ve been partial to a none of the above option.

The establishment loves to screw AZ. Always a lesser of two evils. Martha McSally is one of the worst, yet the establishment continues to push her because she is a neocon/MIC tool. Then they put her up against Mark Kelly, a gun grabbing, China loving globalist who is also likely a neocon/MIC tool. Most voters are ignorant, but AZ has more than their share.

Yep, that summarizes our "choice" nicely.

To vent, regarding Kelly and McSilly: I don't care if you've flown fighter jets or space shuttles before! That just means you handle accelerations well! I care if you have liberty-rooted principles! And all of the political ads, all they talk about is "healthcare" and "Medicare" and "social security" (society does not make one secure). Kelly gets a weak slamming for his Chinese business ventures, but mostly it's just pandering to the elderly. There are quite many freedom-loving zealots in Az, and if someone would rally us properly, they'd be unstoppable!

Okay, done venting.

 

[Working Poor]

I think it would be a real good option in primaries. But we all know it is rigged and our votes don't count. If it did voting would be illegal.

 

[cjm]

I’ve been partial to a none of the above option..

I know it doesn't have the same effect, but I've written in "NOTA" on many ballots.

 

[Badnon Wissenshaftler]

I think it would be a real good option in primaries. But we all know it is rigged and our votes don't count. If it did voting would be illegal.

And in that case, we need to make them tip their hand unequivocally. But the two-party system, and the control of candidates within those parties, is wholly a scheme of divide and conquer. Produce two candidates whose differences are inconsequential to the top-echelon puppenspielers, and have the populace fight over their "choices".

A "NO" or none-of-the-above option would spoil that game quite quickly, I should think.

 

[Voluntarist]

Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling

May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I know it doesn't have the same effect, but I've written in "NOTA" on many ballots.

I have done that too, but I suspect the reaction is that they discard my ballot.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If it counted as an actual vote that might be worthwhile - so long as the requirement existed that a majority, rather than plurality, vote was need to win. But I'm still quite fond of Nobody, because Nobody will:
- Balance the budget
- Keep us out of foreign wars we have no business in
- Ensure equal treatment for all under the law
- Etc.

Plurality should not decide any vote. Ever.

And let me add, what if the Founders had required a 75% threshold for a Congressional rep? If no one gets 75%, then that District gets no representative. That might force some consensus.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Having a "No" option on voting would most likely end up having more votes than both the Democratic and Republican nominee.

 

[mt4rp]

For a government to be considered legitimate shouldn't the first thing needing to be decided is whether the individual voter has given their consent to be governed?

 

[Badnon Wissenshaftler]

For a government to be considered legitimate shouldn't the first thing needing to be decided is whether the individual voter has given their consent to be governed?

Well, that would be a vote worth tallying, huh?

But, sorry, but we're all victims of that infamous "social contract" none of us signed, remember?

 

[mt4rp]

Oh yeah I forgot about the social contract being freedoms kryptonite.