I regret I’m unable to vote for “none of the above”!

S

Supposn

Verified User
I regret I’m unable to vote for “none of the above”.

I regret my state does not follow Nevada’s example. “None” appears along with all other candidates’ names on the ballots.

A vote for "None" implies a willingness to vote for future candidates who are more acceptable.

This may to some extent hinder the power of money to purchase election results. It quantifies the numbers of voters who are completely dissatisfied.

Respectfully Supposn
 
That is tantamount to not voting, and it strikes me as totally useless expression of a non-expression. It reminds me of the childish impulse to take your ball and go home when the game is not going your way. Do people who think this way think that this has meaning in a political world in which choice makes a difference? Consider only scotus choices or policy choices, another idiot like Scalia and we will be back to the 18th century robber baron days. To not vote is to relinquish your right to speak out on all issues and helps provide power the ability to control even more efficiently.

"A surefire politics of change would necessarily involve getting people in the middle — from the 30th to the 70th percentile — to see their own economic self-interest. If they vote in their own self-interest, they’ll elect people who are likely to be more aligned with people with lower incomes as well as with them. As long as people in the middle identify more with people on the top than with those on the bottom, we are doomed. The obscene amount of money flowing into the electoral process makes things harder yet." Peter Edelman http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/why-cant-we-end-poverty-in-america.html
 
midcan5 said:
That is tantamount to not voting, and it strikes me as totally useless expression of a non-expression. It reminds me of the childish impulse to take your ball and go home when the game is not going your way. Do people who think this way think that this has meaning in a political world in which choice makes a difference? Consider only scotus choices or policy choices, another idiot like Scalia and we will be back to the 18th century robber baron days. To not vote is to relinquish your right to speak out on all issues and helps provide power the ability to control even more efficiently.

"A surefire politics of change would necessarily involve getting people in the middle — from the 30th to the 70th percentile — to see their own economic self-interest. If they vote in their own self-interest, they’ll elect people who are likely to be more aligned with people with lower incomes as well as with them. As long as people in the middle identify more with people on the top than with those on the bottom, we are doomed. The obscene amount of money flowing into the electoral process makes things harder yet." Peter Edelman http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/why-cant-we-end-poverty-in-america.html
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree we should reward candidates with our votes, ESPECIALLY if they do not meet our personal qualifications. Holding people to standards is meaningless.
 
Nikola Tesla said:
Yes, I agree we should reward candidates with our votes, ESPECIALLY if they do not meet our personal qualifications. Holding people to standards is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Nikola Telsa, it’s your position that we should encourage bad governing by choosing between the only two viable candidates, when neither of them meets our minimum standards and/or all candidates are contrary to our own political positions?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top