Blank votes

Originally posted by chithappens
Even for the reasons i stated first, this is a flawed idea.

Someone in the limelight would also lobby hard for more blank votes. The newly appointed thinkers/parties would seem all "new-age" but do the same thing as the old Whigs (not literally the Whigs, but it just seemed funny to reference them since they no longer exist) and so on.

Democracy is a flawed idea anyways, the reasons you listen are still big bumps in current systems, so they have little grounds in dismissing new ideas. Your post is motivated by the laziness and apathy that you describe.

Also, this new parties being the same, how is this different from the CURRENT system? You have failed to point a single point of how is this worse than what currently exists, which is the whole point. There is no point in aiming for perfect as much as aiming for better.

Theoretically blank votes help to have little parties competing in big elections, is it fairer than the big parties suck the votes by media marketing than some people teaming up for having a shot at the government?

Originally posted by chithappens
Even for the reasons i stated first, this is a flawed idea.

Someone in the limelight would also lobby hard for more blank votes. The newly appointed thinkers/parties would seem all "new-age" but do the same thing as the old Whigs (not literally the Whigs, but it just seemed funny to reference them since they no longer exist) and so on.

Originally posted by Bentley

Your post is motivated by the laziness and apathy that you describe.

Also, this new parties being the same, how is this different from the CURRENT system? You have failed to point a single point of how is this worse than what currently exists, which is the whole point. There is no point in aiming for perfect as much as aiming for better.

You just seem bitter because I don't agree with you. Democracy, as it is be used today, is extremely flawed. In theory, it could work but it assumes that each citizen is informed and each politician is working towards the goal of improving said nation-state.

Regardless of a minor tweak, we would reach the same result. You don't know what motivates me or what my mode of thinking is, so it would be wise of you to reserve such judgment ("laziness and apathy"😉 until you are able to ask more specific questions about my opinion.

Originally posted by Bentley

Theoretically blank votes help to have little parties competing in big elections, is it fairer than the big parties suck the votes by media marketing than some people teaming up for having a shot at the government?

And in application, C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me) makes any smaller party unable to run a decent campaign anyway. Why do you think no politician is, at the time of them running for office, of the middle to lower economic class?

What you are saying is very cute in theory, but in application it is hard for any of this to hold up with a huge backing by the citizens of a nation. That was the problem @ the beginning and remains the biggest problem.

I also find it very odd that you chose to quote my post when others are calling what we have a dictatorship. Very odd indeed.

Originally posted by chithappens
You just seem bitter because I don't agree with you. Democracy, as it is be used today, is extremely flawed. In theory, it could work but it assumes that each citizen is informed and each politician is working towards the goal of improving said nation-state. Regardless of a minor tweak, we would reach the same result.

Agreed, I'm arguing about a theoretical application of democracy, even an informed citizen can do nothing in the current systems to prevent a party to go into power when his information points out that its bad for the state. I find the lack of option a partial democracy at best.

Originally posted by chithappens
You don't know what motivates me or what my mode of thinking is, so it would be wise of you to reserve such judgment ("laziness and apathy"😉 until you are able to ask more specific questions about my opinion.

"Apathy is a state of indifference — where an individual has an absence of interest or concern to certain aspects of emotional, social, or physical life."

Shown in the fact that you did not provide your full opinion, instead just waited for me to ask questions. Laziness, another perfectly logical explanation for why you did not post your opinion and instead gave a two-liner.

It was a logical derivation of your behavior, meant to sound offensive but actually harmless in nature.

Originally posted by chithappens

And in application, C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me) makes any smaller party unable to run a decent campaign anyway. Why do you think no politician is, at the time of them running for office, of the middle to lower economic class?

What you are saying is very cute in theory, but in application it is hard for any of this to hold up with a huge backing by the citizens of a nation. That was the problem @ the beginning and remains the biggest problem.

I find this theory to be specially useful in little elections where economics pay a lesser part, in a liberal capitalist system they would find little application.

Originally posted by chithappens

I also find it very odd that you chose to quote my post when others are calling what we have a dictatorship. Very odd indeed.

You are the one who is addressing the flaws in my idea, which is productive to see if I'm being entirely delusional or not. If I thought that the current system was an excellent democracy I wouldn't suggest to tweak it, in true I don't even advocate for true democracy as a form of government, but I try to make it better to figure out its technical flaws in future discussions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which is probably true also. Contrary to popular belief, I do not hold any kind of power over the Phillippines and most governments don't like if you preach about their abolishment.

Well, my suggestion was not very serious. Though, it would be nice to see something like this done in a Governed country similar to our own before we go to town on our own. I still think that it would fail horribly and the only thing that would convince me other wise is successes in similar environments. In other words, I don't believe your idea would work until I see it work...it seems to be too much of a gamble.

I still like the idea of a blank vote. Maybe campaigning should be much much shorter to allow for a re-vote IF the majority vote goes towards "none of the above".

Robtard (sorry to take your name in vain) seems to think all candidates available for the presidential election are not good enough for his vote. Do you think it would be fair that he has to chose a candidate that he doesn't really agree with?

Originally posted by Bentley

Shown in the fact that you did not provide your full opinion, instead just waited for me to ask questions. Laziness, another perfectly logical explanation for why you did not post your opinion and instead gave a two-liner.

It was a logical derivation of your behavior, meant to sound offensive but actually harmless in nature.

Dude, I'm on ****ing spring break. Cut me some slack.

Sorry, enjoy the spring break! 😛

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, my suggestion was not very serious. Though, it would be nice to see something like this done in a Governed country similar to our own before we go to town on our own. I still think that it would fail horribly and the only thing that would convince me other wise is successes in similar environments. In other words, I don't believe your idea would work until I see it work...it seems to be too much of a gamble.

Lets just remember for the record that it wasn't my idea. But proceed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Robtard (sorry to take your name in vain) seems to think all candidates available for the presidential election are not good enough for his vote. Do you think it would be fair that he has to chose a candidate that he doesn't really agree with?

Obviously not. But he can just not vote. Or vote for third parties. So that's at least not a problemI see more the problem in the whole establishment that justifies the opression of minorities and in your US system sometimes even majorities.

Originally posted by Bentley
I have been doing some thinking about the white votes (not choosing any of the candidates rather than voting for one), and how they are something fundamentally important in a democracy. Voting no one in an election sends a message "we don't like the choices we are given" and sometimes such message is need to be sent.

The main problem about this blank votes is that they are counter culture, people who vote like that are usually regarded as radicals, and others simply believe that voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a better thing to do. I figured that this is because the current society consider this votes as "useless".

But why is there no effort to educate people and to explain them how a blank vote is a rightful expression of democracy? There should be campaigns to raise the importance of this practice so democracy is at their fullest, TV adds should stress that voting blank is better than "the lesser of two evils".

Note that this message is not linked to any political following and is put here to let ideas flow and ideologies meet, nothing more.

There are several political scientists who study the phenomenon of blank voting.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets just remember for the record that it wasn't my idea. But proceed.

I didn't explain myself well enough. I am referring to your idea that pure anarchy would work in America IF a majority of votes were "none of the above" during the presidential election (that last part there was my scenario.)). I thought that it would send us into chaos and you said:

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, it's a good idea. No one steps into their place. We get an anarchist utopia. And everything is fine without any leaders.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Obviously not. But he can just not vote. Or vote for third parties. So that's at least not a problemI see more the problem in the whole establishment that justifies the opression of minorities and in your US system sometimes even majorities.

Right now, "not voting" is his only option...then people will call him a bad citizen and/or apathetic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't explain myself well enough. I am referring to your idea that pure anarchy would work in America IF a majority of votes were "none of the above" during the presidential election (that last part there was my scenario.)). I thought that it would send us into chaos and you said:

Yeah, I said that jokingly continuing your thought. But it wasn't my idea that the system should be abolished I just played along your joke.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[BRight now, "not voting" is his only option...then people will call him a bad citizen and/or apathetic. [/B]

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but as I said this option does exist. That people see that as being a bad citizen is just part of the bullshit pro democracy propaganda.

hmm I see your point. But it WOULD help if you had the option to vote "none of the above". We would get better turnouts IF it encouraged more people to vote, imo. That is really what I want the "none of the above" option to do. It may get more people involved in politics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
hmm I see your point. But it WOULD help if you had the option to vote "none of the above". We would get better turnouts IF it encouraged more people to vote, imo. That is really what I want the "none of the above" option to do. It may get more people involved in politics.

A "none of the above" vote would go nowhere, so it would be the same as people not voting, which is a current problem.

A better option would be a "need new electables", where if enough votes went into this slot, the current runners would have to drop out and a new batch of people would be needed. Though this is also a shit idea.

Originally posted by Fire
Ofcourse Blank Votes are important. They can provide politicians, and political scientists with useful info. Although it is a bit rough, not that much can be done with it. It has a more informative function in a country where voting is mandatory though.

There are several political scientists who study the phenomenon of blank voting.

I think that encouraging blank voting as an expression of public discontent with an election would be practical for conceiving future decisions and ideologies.

Originally posted by Robtard
A "none of the above" vote would go nowhere, so it would be the same as people not voting, which is a current problem.

A better option would be a "need new electables", where if enough votes went into this slot, the current runners would have to drop out and a new batch of people would be needed. Though this is also a shit idea.

A "none of the above" is the same thing as "need new electables", "I am apathetic", or "I prefer anarchy". (And any other reason you can think of.)

We could over complicate that particular vote but it isn't necessary.

I suggested holding elections earlier in the year...enough time to have a reelection if a majority vote "none of the above"...and during this second election, a "none of the above" option is not listed. That is just adding an over complication to an already complicated election system, imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A "none of the above" is the same thing as "need new electables", "I am apathetic", or "I prefer anarchy". (And any other reason you can think of.)

We could over complicate that particular vote but it isn't necessary.

I suggested holding elections earlier in the year...enough time to have a reelection if a majority vote "none of the above"...and during this second election, a "none of the above" option is not listed. That is just adding an over complication to an already complicated election system, imo.

What happens with repeated "none of the above" turnouts, theoretically, George Bush (or whomever) could stay in power far longer, if we had that option now and it kept beign the popular selection.

People can vote for whomever they want. There is the option to write in any "candidate" or political opinion the voter wishes. These votes are counted, however a ballot cast for somone who is not running for the office will make no difference. Every presidential elction there are thousands of votes cast for Mickey Mouse. They're counted, but they don't go towards any meaningful expression.

Originally posted by Robtard
What happens with repeated "none of the above" turnouts, theoretically, George Bush (or whomever) could stay in power far longer, if we had that option now and it kept beign the popular selection.

No. They would vacate their position....business as usual. The first election held earlier in the year-under my proposition-would have an option of none of the above. If the majority vote went to "none of the above", another election would be held later that year and a "none of the above" would not be an option. None of the above could still be an option and the 2nd most voted for could be president/congressman...but I see no purpose for "none of the above" in the second election.

What would voting 'none of the above" in the virtually first election accomplish? 😕 😕 😕

Originally posted by Devil King
People can vote for whomever they want. There is the option to write in any "candidate" or political opinion the voter wishes. These votes are counted, however a ballot cast for somone who is not running for the office will make no difference. Every presidential elction there are thousands of votes cast for Mickey Mouse. They're counted, but they don't go towards any meaningful expression.

Enter evidence for you statements:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/06/14/news/californian/15_01_13_06.txt

http://www2.beaufortgazette.com/blogs/post/15667

That's I shame that I didn't know that before. How could I have lived this life for so long and never heard of that. 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. They would vacate their position....business as usual. The first election held earlier in the year-under my proposition-would have an option of none of the above. If the majority vote went to "none of the above", another election would be held later that year and a "none of the above" would not be an option. None of the above could still be an option and the 2nd most voted for could be president/congressman...but I see no purpose for "none of the above" in the second election.

What would voting 'none of the above" in the virtually first election accomplish? 😕 😕 😕

Originally posted by chithappens

And in application, C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me) makes any smaller party unable to run a decent campaign anyway. Why do you think no politician is, at the time of them running for office, of the middle to lower economic class?.