If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WJAR-TV)   Bill would add "None of the above" to Massachusetts ballot   (turnto10.com) divider line 36
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

809 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jul 2007 at 9:30 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2007-07-19 07:41:48 AM
Again: It worked for Montgomery Brewster.
 
2007-07-19 08:00:58 AM
And as I said in the earlier thread ... if the candidate is running *unopposed* in the original election, how are they going to round up any new opponents to run against him in the new one?

I don't think they've thought their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2007-07-19 08:11:13 AM
Pocket Ninja: Again: It worked for Montgomery Brewster.

I'd like to suggest that if you really think that's funny, you're dealing with a short deck.
 
2007-07-19 08:18:17 AM
of the magority picked "no confidence" then they should hold a new election with all new candidates. The ones who ran previously should not be alloud to run again.

But I think this is just going to be another way for people to waste their vote.
 
2007-07-19 08:34:56 AM
Bill would add "None of the above" to Massachusetts ballot

Or maybe he could just get Hillary to do it.
 
2007-07-19 08:38:11 AM
I, for one, would like to welcome our new, non-existent, Republican overlords.
 
2007-07-19 09:10:03 AM
Great...Now I don't have to sign my name and leave the ballot blank...

I agree with this. If the majority of the general populace doesn't like any of the candidates, they shouldn't have to be stuck with Dickhead 1, Dickhead 2, Dickhead Green, or Dickhead Blue.
 
2007-07-19 09:21:10 AM
This won't fly, because it will make it harder for corporations to let us pick from their carefuly selected list of candidates.

keylock71: Great...Now I don't have to sign my name and leave the ballot blank...

I agree with this. If the majority of the general populace doesn't like any of the candidates, they shouldn't have to be stuck with Dickhead 1, Dickhead 2, Dickhead Green, or Dickhead Blue.


Perhaps we can choose from one dick, two dick, red dick, blue dick?
 
2007-07-19 09:25:02 AM
PirateKing

I do not like red dicks and ham....
 
2007-07-19 09:31:56 AM
PirateKing: Perhaps we can choose from one dick, two dick, red dick, blue dick?

I like that idea. On my ballot, it always seems there are too many Daves.
 
Bf+
2007-07-19 09:36:17 AM
Not bad, but how about implementing the negative vote.
Its basically how people are voting now anyway-- oooh, I hate that GW Bush guy, I believe I'll vote for the other corporate shill!
However, in the negative vote system, you may vote for one candidate, or against one candidate.

/Vote for me!
 
2007-07-19 09:37:14 AM
What if someone changes their name to None Of The Above?
 
2007-07-19 09:51:48 AM
moops: What if someone changes their name to None Of The Above?

In MA, the candidate's home address is listed below the name - so it'd be pretty easy to tell if you were paying attention.
 
2007-07-19 10:01:16 AM
moops: What if someone changes their name to None Of The Above?

They'll lose to None Of The Above Kennedy?
 
2007-07-19 10:02:01 AM
Atleast this is better than Nevada where voting none of the above means that the winner is the second place finish.
 
2007-07-19 10:03:15 AM
BF+
I would like to vote against you.
 
2007-07-19 10:23:30 AM
ThatWomanFromMassachusetts: And as I said in the earlier thread ... if the candidate is running *unopposed* in the original election, how are they going to round up any new opponents to run against him in the new one?

I don't think they've thought their cunning plan all the way through.


Hell, I'd consider running at that point. Tho maybe I'd just start a write-in campaign.

/vote enry
//Four more beers!
 
2007-07-19 10:38:57 AM
Outstanding

The only question is, as everyone's pointed out, who goes on the second ballot? It's all well and good to vote for "none of the above", but if nobody wants to run...well...that's a problem too
 
2007-07-19 10:50:29 AM
Beaten to it.

img413.imageshack.us
 
2007-07-19 10:50:57 AM
Seems like a good idea. I seem to remember some country (France? somewhere in West Europe) where you could vote for your favorite, second favorite, etc, down to four or five choices. Seems like a much better system, lot of talk about this after the Gore/Bush debacle.
 
2007-07-19 10:51:06 AM
enry Hell, I'd consider running at that point.

That's my plan for 2008, run against any and all unopposed candidates. 2006, at the local and state level, I counted 15 positions where the candidates were completely unopposed for a single, or you could vote for any 2 of 2 or 3 of 3 for councils or boards.

Ain't no way, in a functioning system, where that should ever happen. I have no real desire to be on the road council, school board, mayor and dog catcher and appelate judge all at once, but if that's what it takes to get people to get involved, I'm all for it.

A vote for me is a vote against everyone else.
 
2007-07-19 11:33:39 AM
Does this mean that Republican primaries would need to be held over again?

And if so, can we kick the current bunch of losers out and get 5 or 6 new R candidates? Throwing a dartboard at a phone book should get some people who would do a better job than Romney OR Guliani!
 
2007-07-19 11:47:40 AM
Sir Vanderhoot: Seems like a good idea. I seem to remember some country (France? somewhere in West Europe) where you could vote for your favorite, second favorite, etc, down to four or five choices. Seems like a much better system, lot of talk about this after the Gore/Bush debacle.

Instant run off voting is a very, very good thing for 3rd parties.

As such, it'll never see the light of day beyond a local or student gub'nit election.

\a vote for me is a vote for a TFer in Round 2
 
2007-07-19 12:06:06 PM

Again: It worked for Montgomery Brewster.


Damn, the Boobies. You people know your obscurities.
 
2007-07-19 01:20:33 PM
fosborb: Instant run off voting is a very, very good thing for 3rd parties.

Not as good as Approval or Condorcet.
 
2007-07-19 01:37:24 PM
www.artsnotdead.com
 
2007-07-19 01:45:21 PM
I agree with this. If the majority of the general populace doesn't like any of the candidates, they shouldn't have to be stuck with Dickhead 1, Dickhead 2, Dickhead Green, or Dickhead Blue.
--------------------------------

I couldn't disagree more. The purpose of democratic election is to elect someone. If you are unsatisfied with who is running then people should blame the party structure or the media for making it so that only ex CIA men and mormons can run for president.

If you have 'none of the above' you can end up with no government. Does that mean the old guy stays on, unelected? No government?

This is a fun idea to bring up at a cocktail party to get glasses clinking but it isn't really feasible or wise at all.
 
2007-07-19 02:06:14 PM
Remember the good old days where if you didn't like a candidate you just beat him to death with a rock? Ah, memories...
 
2007-07-19 02:16:48 PM
Snarfangel:Not as good as Approval or Condorcet.

I'd agree that one method might do a better job of selecting the most preferred candidate in a single winner system over the others, but I'm not seeing any substantial difference between them that would benefit a less popular platform. All three allow you to register support for a range of candidates.

What could Approval and Condorcet voting offer the Green Party, for example, that Instant Runoff couldn't?
 
2007-07-19 02:31:30 PM
FriarTuck: I agree with this. If the majority of the general populace doesn't like any of the candidates, they shouldn't have to be stuck with Dickhead 1, Dickhead 2, Dickhead Green, or Dickhead Blue.
--------------------------------

I couldn't disagree more. The purpose of democratic election is to elect someone. If you are unsatisfied with who is running then people should blame the party structure or the media for making it so that only ex CIA men and mormons can run for president.

If you have 'none of the above' you can end up with no government. Does that mean the old guy stays on, unelected? No government?

This is a fun idea to bring up at a cocktail party to get glasses clinking but it isn't really feasible or wise at all.


No, you have another election, until someone acceptable runs for office or the system of nominatign retards changes. Isn't it a shame that we're simply stuck with two idiots all the time? It's about time the respective parties started putting forth electable candidates instead of party shills. They're supposed to represent US, not their party.
 
2007-07-19 02:49:19 PM
href="http://www.walken2008.com/http://">Link
 
2007-07-19 03:35:18 PM
doublesecretprobation: Pocket Ninja: Again: It worked for Montgomery Brewster.

I'd like to suggest that if you really think that's funny, you're dealing with a short deck.


Aww...that's cute. I'll look for other reprints of my posts from other threads from you in the future, you clever, clever man.

/sorry to have hurt your little feelings.
 
2007-07-19 03:38:06 PM
Ralph Nader pushed for this years ago.
 
2007-07-19 03:42:15 PM
ThatWomanFromMassachusetts: if the candidate is running *unopposed* in the original election, how are they going to round up any new opponents to run against him in the new one

how about they leave the office empty? If people like NOBODY better than him/her, it sounds like a good way to reduce the size of gubm't

advres: then they should hold a new election with all new candidates. The ones who ran previously should not be alloud to run again.

been saying this for years...

Skleenar: I like that idea. On my ballot, it always seems there are too many Daves.

Daves not there w/NOTA

FriarTuck: If you have 'none of the above' you can end up with no government. Does that mean the old guy stays on, unelected? No government?

Im thinking the first cycle w/"No government" would build fires under people to get involved - or remove that office.

icy_one: No, you have another election, until someone acceptable runs for office or the system of nominatign retards changes. Isn't it a shame that we're simply stuck with two idiots all the time? It's about time the respective parties started putting forth electable candidates instead of party shills. They're supposed to represent US, not their party.

This. QFT. any other fark isums that say "Yes, I Agree..."
 
2007-07-19 05:08:34 PM
fosborb: What could Approval and Condorcet voting offer the Green Party, for example, that Instant Runoff couldn't?

It's hard to say with the Green Party, but both Plurality and IRV squeeze out centrist candidates, and IRV has some really bizarre behavior. Take a look at these graphs of Plurality, Approval, Borda, Condorcet, and IRV.
 
2007-07-19 08:20:36 PM
I like the sound of this. Maybe the two-party system that's been farking us over for years will finally be opened up.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report