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.

(New Delhi TV)   Indian Supreme Court gives voters a "none of these bozos" option in elections   (ndtv.com) divider line 42
    More: Hero, India's Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Election Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Bharatiya Janata Party  
•       •       •

1357 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2013 at 8:31 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-27 08:33:10 AM
GOOD (Gandhi.)
 
2013-09-27 08:36:12 AM
It would bwe nice to have that option here.
 
2013-09-27 08:36:29 AM
I wish we'd adopt this commonsense measure.
 
2013-09-27 08:37:01 AM
www.rgvblogger.com
 
2013-09-27 08:37:21 AM
If this was applied in the primitive democracy of the US, the first round of election returns: 'None of the above won every election with 100% of the vote'.
 
2013-09-27 08:37:28 AM
 
2013-09-27 08:39:13 AM
We need this here.
 
2013-09-27 08:39:41 AM
Would have used that the previous 4 US elections.  We always get stuck with the least objectionable bag of shait the two parties throw at us.  And then he sucks ass and we try to defend or rip him up here in the politics tab.  Come to think of it we better not get this here or Fark would be a lonely wasteland of emptiness.
 
2013-09-27 08:46:17 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Would have used that the previous 4 US elections.  We always get stuck with the least objectionable bag of shait the two parties throw at us.  And then he sucks ass and we try to defend or rip him up here in the politics tab.  Come to think of it we better not get this here or Fark would be a lonely wasteland of emptiness.



It's a sign of the Apocalypse: I agree with bigsteve3000
 
2013-09-27 08:46:52 AM
There's nothing more noble than a useless, purely symbolic move except maybe supporting such a move on the internet.
 
2013-09-27 08:50:26 AM
4 posts to richard pryor, wtf fark?! I am dissapoint
 
2013-09-27 08:57:31 AM
There's a number of European countries that have this system.  If none of the above gets above a certain percentage (either 50% or just the largest share of the votes if under 50%), then there's a new election in which NO ONE from the first election is allowed to run again.
 
2013-09-27 09:05:34 AM
They put NOTA on the ballot for Student Body President one year while I was in college.  Of course NOTA won big because nobody gives two shiats about student gov't at a big state U.
 
2013-09-27 09:12:59 AM
FTFA: "There is no provision yet to count the "rejection" votes and so these will not impact the result of the election."
 
2013-09-27 09:21:04 AM
for those of you who weren't quite sure...

www.studentfilmmakers.com
 
2013-09-27 09:34:26 AM
I'm pretty sure voters already had that option - it's called "not voting.
 
2013-09-27 09:39:49 AM

Biological Ali: I'm pretty sure voters already had that option - it's called "not voting.


Wrong again.  Not voting means that the least objectionable dirtbag starts pretending he's in charge and feels entitled to interfere with your life.

Having a "None" option means that, if None wins, the election starts over with a totally new slate of dirtbags.
 
2013-09-27 09:42:06 AM
Having this as an option for U.S. presidential elections, if they were counted against the total, would inevitably result in nobody ever gaining an electoral college majority, rendering the vote useless.
 
2013-09-27 09:43:42 AM

wxboy: Having this as an option for U.S. presidential elections, if they were counted against the total, would inevitably result in nobody ever gaining an electoral college majority, rendering the vote useless.



That's a feature, not a bug.
 
2013-09-27 09:46:03 AM

Phinn: wxboy: Having this as an option for U.S. presidential elections, if they were counted against the total, would inevitably result in nobody ever gaining an electoral college majority, rendering the vote useless.

That's a feature, not a bug.


Short of a constitutional amendment, such an outcome would just lead to the House choosing the president each time.  I don't think that's better than the current situation.
 
2013-09-27 09:50:16 AM

Phinn: Biological Ali: I'm pretty sure voters already had that option - it's called "not voting.

Wrong again.  Not voting means that the least objectionable dirtbag starts pretending he's in charge and feels entitled to interfere with your life.

Having a "None" option means that, if None wins, the election starts over with a totally new slate of dirtbags.


First of all, "wrong again"? You do realize this is the first time both you and I have posted in this thread, right?

Second of all, there are already things that voters can do if they don't like any of the listed candidates (I'm assuming India has some sort of write-in system). This court decision - if indeed anything actually materializes out of it, which itself is doubtful - is addressing a problem that doesn't actually exist.
 
2013-09-27 09:54:48 AM
If 'none of the above' gets the most votes, does that mean the office goes unfilled, or does the runner up get the job?

5. There is no provision yet to count the "rejection" votes and so these will not impact the result of the election.

Aha.  So we're just jerking off then.
 
2013-09-27 09:57:42 AM
I think if the None of the Above vote gets 50.1% or more of the vote, then all candidates are shot and we start over with new ones.
 
2013-09-27 10:40:55 AM

Headso: 4 posts to richard pryor, wtf fark?! I am dissapoint


Why wasn't it in the headline?

/I'm only 30, but you can still remove yourself from my front landscaping.
 
2013-09-27 10:53:48 AM
So does this mean they won't actually elect farking Lex Luthor next year?

inspiringquotes.in

/BJP always overestimates its chances
//or I'm just in denial
 
2013-09-27 11:23:40 AM
I've wanted this since the first time I saw a ballot that I was to actually cast.

So, very, badly.
 
2013-09-27 11:24:27 AM

Biological Ali: I'm pretty sure voters already had that option - it's called "not voting.


Right - and when people don't vote, is it because they just don't vote, or because they're apathetic, or because they're abstaining due to a poor pool of candidates?

Wouldn't it be somewhat useful to try to answer that question? Or, at the very least, stop giving an incentive to the lousy candidates to take advantage of the apathy?
 
2013-09-27 11:31:58 AM

Biological Ali: I'm pretty sure voters already had that option - it's called "not voting.



Not even close.
 
2013-09-27 11:32:39 AM

wxboy: Phinn: wxboy: Having this as an option for U.S. presidential elections, if they were counted against the total, would inevitably result in nobody ever gaining an electoral college majority, rendering the vote useless.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Short of a constitutional amendment, such an outcome would just lead to the House choosing the president each time.  I don't think that's better than the current situation.


There wouldn't be anybody but the janitor in the House or the Senate. I've thought we needed this option for the last 40 years.
 
2013-09-27 11:33:24 AM

wxboy: Phinn: wxboy: Having this as an option for U.S. presidential elections, if they were counted against the total, would inevitably result in nobody ever gaining an electoral college majority, rendering the vote useless.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Short of a constitutional amendment, such an outcome would just lead to the House choosing the president each time.  I don't think that's better than the current situation.



Get with the times, dude.  Constitutional amendments are old.  In fact, the whole Constitution is old.

The new way is to just do whatever the hell you want and call it legal.

Old way:  Want to ban alcohol as a dangerous substance?  Pass a Constitutional Amendment, and then pass another one to repeal the first one.

New way:  Want to ban [other] dangerous substances?  Banned!  No amendment needed.

Old way:  Politicians want to take over whole sections of the American economy?  Nope!  It's an unconstitutional exercise of raw power unless the subject matter of your proposed law is specifically enumerated.

New way:  Hey, what do you say about the US government controlling the entire health insurance industry?  Done!   Every law affects commerce, and everything anybody does affects commerce, and the US government has the power to "regulate" "interstate" commerce, so it has the power to control everything.  QED
 
2013-09-27 11:38:40 AM

Biological Ali: Phinn: Biological Ali: I'm pretty sure voters already had that option - it's called "not voting.

Wrong again.  Not voting means that the least objectionable dirtbag starts pretending he's in charge and feels entitled to interfere with your life.

Having a "None" option means that, if None wins, the election starts over with a totally new slate of dirtbags.

First of all, "wrong again"? You do realize this is the first time both you and I have posted in this thread, right?

Second of all, there are already things that voters can do if they don't like any of the listed candidates (I'm assuming India has some sort of write-in system). This court decision - if indeed anything actually materializes out of it, which itself is doubtful - is addressing a problem that doesn't actually exist.



First, I'm vaguely recalling your past wrongness.

Second, there's no law preventing the passage of other laws to solve problems you don't think exist.  You're just defining problems differently than other people do.  The problem, as others see it, is that by the time the ballot reaches Election Day and the Low Information Voter gives his attention to it for the first time, the slate of candidates sucks ass.  Having a NONE option adds another layer of protection against insider-y control over the nomination process, which (as you might not be aware) is profoundly controlled by insider-y types, who are, by and large, assholes.
 
2013-09-27 11:42:06 AM
Do they have a "Gregory Peck" option yet?
 
2013-09-27 11:53:29 AM

give me doughnuts: Biological Ali: I'm pretty sure voters already had that option - it's called "not voting.


Not even close.


In this situation not voting and voting for "none of the above" are identical, since the "none of the above" votes are not counted and do not affect the election in any way.
 
2013-09-27 11:56:45 AM

sprawl15: There's nothing more noble than a useless, purely symbolic move except maybe supporting such a move on the internet.


I'll pray for you. Over the internets.
 
2013-09-27 01:52:44 PM

Phinn: First, I'm vaguely recalling your past wrongness.

Second, there's no law preventing the passage of other laws to solve problems you don't think exist. You're just defining problems differently than other people do. The problem, as others see it, is that by the time the ballot reaches Election Day and the Low Information Voter gives his attention to it for the first time, the slate of candidates sucks ass. Having a NONE option adds another layer of protection against insider-y control over the nomination process, which (as you might not be aware) is profoundly controlled by insider-y types, who are, by and large, assholes.


"Vaguely recalling your past wrongness"? I can't even tell if you're being serious - but in any event, I'd like to reiterate a couple things:

In this particular case, where no actual change has been made to the electoral process, this whole thing is indeed identical to not voting. I was talking specifically about TFA when I made my comment.

Beyond that, even if the proposed change actually had been made, it would still make no meaningful difference for the simple reason that government needs to exist there are a slew of positions that need to be filled by somebody. If for whatever reason the election is cancelled or postponed (which is essentially what people are proposing happens when "none of the above" wins), they won't just go vacant. Generally, either the previous holder of the position will continue to serve, or a caretaker will be appointed, and these alternatives are decidedly less democratic than what would happen if people had voted sensibly rather than making some "LOL politicians suck" symbolic gesture.

Measures like this don't serve to actually solve any definable problem - they just serve as an outlet for people to vent vague feelings of angst, which is one of the worst kinds of things you can encourage in a populace.
 
2013-09-27 02:04:15 PM

ImpendingCynic: Biological Ali: I'm pretty sure voters already had that option - it's called "not voting.

Right - and when people don't vote, is it because they just don't vote, or because they're apathetic, or because they're abstaining due to a poor pool of candidates?

Wouldn't it be somewhat useful to try to answer that question? Or, at the very least, stop giving an incentive to the lousy candidates to take advantage of the apathy?


Generally, when you start talking about specific reasons that candidates seem "lousy", you'll find that there always better ways to address those specific problems than what is being proposed here. Policies like this are like term limits, in that they're ideas that seem attractive to some people on a superficial level, but when you think about them you realize that there's a huge disconnect between them and the actual, specific things that are supposedly causing politicians to be lousy.
 
2013-09-27 02:29:47 PM

Biological Ali: Phinn: First, I'm vaguely recalling your past wrongness.

Second, there's no law preventing the passage of other laws to solve problems you don't think exist. You're just defining problems differently than other people do. The problem, as others see it, is that by the time the ballot reaches Election Day and the Low Information Voter gives his attention to it for the first time, the slate of candidates sucks ass. Having a NONE option adds another layer of protection against insider-y control over the nomination process, which (as you might not be aware) is profoundly controlled by insider-y types, who are, by and large, assholes.

"Vaguely recalling your past wrongness"? I can't even tell if you're being serious - but in any event, I'd like to reiterate a couple things:

In this particular case, where no actual change has been made to the electoral process, this whole thing is indeed identical to not voting. I was talking specifically about TFA when I made my comment.

Beyond that, even if the proposed change actually had been made, it would still make no meaningful difference for the simple reason that government needs to exist there are a slew of positions that need to be filled by somebody. If for whatever reason the election is cancelled or postponed (which is essentially what people are proposing happens when "none of the above" wins), they won't just go vacant. Generally, either the previous holder of the position will continue to serve, or a caretaker will be appointed, and these alternatives are decidedly less democratic than what would happen if people had voted sensibly rather than making some "LOL politicians suck" symbolic gesture.

Measures like this don't serve to actually solve any definable problem - they just serve as an outlet for people to vent vague feelings of angst, which is one of the worst kinds of things you can encourage in a populace.



Everything you've said here is wrong, including the prepositions and punctuation.

It's all just regurgitated articles of faith, and shows zero reflection or interest in reason and evidence on your part.

(N.B., a change in procedures can't cause "no meaningful difference" and yet be a (perceived) disaster at the same time.  I'll presume you meant "no meaningful improvement" since a law change can't be inconsequential and bad at the same time.  But of course, what constitutes "improvement" is a matter of perspective and preference and opinion.)
 
2013-09-27 02:39:02 PM

Phinn: Everything you've said here is wrong, including the prepositions and punctuation.

It's all just regurgitated articles of faith, and shows zero reflection or interest in reason and evidence on your part.


(N.B., a change in procedures can't cause "no meaningful difference" and yet be a (perceived) disaster at the same time. I'll presume you meant "no meaningful improvement" since a law change can't be inconsequential and bad at the same time. But of course, what constitutes "improvement" is a matter of perspective and preference and opinion.)


At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling here, since the bolded lines are pretty much the hallmark of someone who has no intention of discussing something in good faith. And then there's your subsequent paragraph, which contains an implausibly clumsy misunderstanding of what I was actually saying.
 
2013-09-27 04:51:45 PM
I vote third party as my "none of the above" choice.  I know a third party candidate doesn't have any chance of winning, but I refuse to vote for a D or R.
 
2013-09-28 12:19:32 AM
I'd like a binding none of the above - if that line gets more than a candidate, that candidate cannot be elected to that office that election cycle. Thus if "none of the above" gets the most votes, an entirely new slate has to contend for the office.

Yeah, it might reduce run offs. That probably wouldn't balance out the number of special elections, though.
 
2013-09-28 12:33:51 AM

OgreMagi: I vote third party as my "none of the above" choice.  I know a third party candidate doesn't have any chance of winning, but I refuse to vote for a D or R.


Third party candidates have a strong, perennial tendency to appeal to liberal-minded voters. By voting for a third party candidate, you are effectively supporting the main conservative candidate by taking a vote away from the main liberal candidate.

A none of the above option would be different, because it would catch neutrals, liberals who don't like the main liberal candidate, and conservative candidate. Although, it could still be gamed by one or both parties, just like the existing third party system.
 
2013-09-28 10:08:17 AM

HotWingAgenda: OgreMagi: I vote third party as my "none of the above" choice.  I know a third party candidate doesn't have any chance of winning, but I refuse to vote for a D or R.

Third party candidates have a strong, perennial tendency to appeal to liberal-minded voters. By voting for a third party candidate, you are effectively supporting the main conservative candidate by taking a vote away from the main liberal candidate.

A none of the above option would be different, because it would catch neutrals, liberals who don't like the main liberal candidate, and conservative candidate. Although, it could still be gamed by one or both parties, just like the existing third party system.


A binding None option would greatly reduce the marketing value of incendiary, radical or polarizing political proposals.

Those campaign styles, while popular as red meat for the base, would carry an equally high risk of triggering high negatives, and thus more likely to garner more None votes.

A None option would turn down the Fire-Breathing Radical factor.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report