Voted...

[seawasp]

.... simple enough.

I have, however, reached the point that I am actually SERIOUSLY (as opposed to idly) considering starting the "NONE OF THE ABOVE" party, whose sole major purpose would be to get "None of the above" as a permanent choice on all ballots. And if "none of the above" WON the election, the election would have to be re-held... AND NONE OF THE PRIOR CANDIDATES, INCLUDING INCUMBENTS, COULD RUN, because they would already have been given the clear signal of "We Don't WANT you" by The People.

One of the more local races has been filled with more noisome mudslinging than I ever recall seeing, and BOTH candidates look like good choices for indictment to me.

Comments

[elainegrey.livejournal.com]

Brilliant!

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

No, no, "NONE OF THE ABOVE" doesn't mean rehold the election, it means "Leave the post vacant for this term"! :)

Unfortunately...

[seawasp]

.... while I would love to do that, in practical terms you can't because too much of the structure of government relies on there being people responsible for specific tasks. You CAN'T leave the office of President AND Vice President (and potentially others) empty for four years.

[amberdine.livejournal.com]

I like this idea a lot.

There is something very wrong with both the party caucus and primary election procedures. Nobody likes the people running. So how come these are the people running??

Unfortuantely I don't know if there's a fix. I think it's a result of the crappiness of human nature. :( No one who would be good at holding office would want to go through the process to get it.

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

So let's get really radical. Bring back the draft--for Congress.

Greetings! You have been selected to serve your country for the next two years as the elected Representative of Congressional District X....

Or, alternatively, only draft someone if NOTA wins the election. This allows us to continue electing people rather than it being entirely random, and also provides a realistic check on NOTA votes. Are you really ready to accept some randomly chosen stranger over the announced candidates? If so, vote NOTA. If not....

[kgbooklog.livejournal.com]

Too bad nothing like that will ever happen here, where we already have laws that cause unopposed candidates in certain races to automatically be "declared elected". See the second page of my ballot.

[alex swavely (from livejournal.com)]

They have to put unopposeds on the ballots here because you can vote for a write-in of your own choice (which is why Mickey Mouse often gets a percentage point or so in presidential elections).

[kgbooklog.livejournal.com]

Here, there were only two places to write in a candidate: governor and chief justice of the state supreme court. And I have no idea how you write in on a touchscreen voting machine. But back to the unopposeds, you can't write in or even vote for those 15 people because they are already elected.

[alex swavely (from livejournal.com)]

We can write-in every position - though, to be honest, I haven't the first clue as to who else might be qualified for "Judge, seat 1, district 3"

:D

Obviously..

[seawasp]

you write in "Dredd".

[alex swavely (from livejournal.com)]

I agree, same situation here - one race here did all their mudslinging first, then (starting about a week ago) got down to issues. And it appears that the race is between and ultra-left and an infra-right, with no one in between.

[fallenpegasus]

There are a fair number of slots on my ballot that I left blank.

[aardy.livejournal.com]

I actually had the very same thought this morning, though I mentally labelled the option "No Confidence". Either way, create some mechanism by which the voters can register disgust with all candidates and prevent any of them from running in a run-off election. So what if we don't know who wins until January? It used to take until March to tally votes, as I recall.

(However, I can then see unscrupulous parties putting up a nearly unelectable stalking horse and slinging so much mud at the opponent that a "None of the above" movement has a real chance of getting the most votes, then putting up the real candidate in the run-off.)

We had a non-binding poll on our ballot this time asking voters if they were in favor or against doing away with having to declare party affiliation in order to get a ballot for a primary. If that ever passes for real, that would be a step in the right direction, but it's not enough.

[howardbrazee.livejournal.com]

The Democrats should examine the 1946 election, which at the time was seen as a big mandate for the Republicans. It wasn't - it was a vote against the incumbents, and it didn't last.

Along with voting Republicans out of office, quite a few "Righteous" ballot issues passed. These are issues that the Republicans tend to campaign on.

(It is much easier and more comfortable to be Righteous than Good. Islam is based upon being Righteous. Jesus was good, the pharisee were righteous. Righteous people are willing to commit all sorts of evil because they know they are right).

I don't think people voted Democratic yesterday. They voted to throw the bastards out.

(The ads were very effective in convincing us that the other guys were scum)

[howardbrazee.livejournal.com]

We don't elect presidents based upon competency nor even philosophy.
We elect presidents based upon which ticket has people we would be more comfortable inviting to our home.

While running for Congress GWB lost an election where he was out
Good-old-Boy'd, and he learned his lesson. He converted from a Yale
rich kid to a Texas folksy guy and started winning.

He won virtually all of the rural counties, and lost most all of the
urban counties. That was enough to win.

Look at the following tickets of elections I paid attention to:


2004 Texas-Wyoming Massachusetts-North Carolina
2000 Texas-Wyoming Tennessee-Connecticut
1996 Kansas-Maryland Arkansas-Tennessee
1992 Texas-Indiana Arkansas-Tennessee
1988 Texas-Indiana Massachusetts-Texas
1984 California-Texas Minnesota-New York
1980 California-Texas Georgia-Minnesota
1976 Michigan-Kansas Georgia-Minnesota
1972 California-Maryland South Dakota-Maryland
1968 California-Maryland Minnesota-Maine
1964 Arizona -New York Texas-Minnesota
1960 California-Massachusetts Massachusetts-Texas

1. In the elections featuring a Cowboy who we invited into our
living room once a week, the cowboy won. 1984, 1980

2. In the presidential race, Northern beats Western, beats Southern.
2004, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1976, 1960

3. Tie goes to the vice presidential candidate: 2000, 1968, 1964

Note: In 1960, Massachusetts beat California (not much difference),
in a close race - the vice presidential candidates were a Texan vs an
aristocrat (Henry Cabot Lodge). In 1972, Sargent Shriver was a
Kennedy guy, while Spiro Agnew was more of a Southerner.

[murbin.livejournal.com]

I'm a registered independent in the Peoples Commonwealth, which means I can vote in any primary I want. This year, I voted a straight write in of "None of the Above" for every seat for one party, even were the candidate was running unopposed.

no confidence

[heracolyte.livejournal.com]

A noconfidence vote is helpful for registering disgust.

But it treats the symptom rather than the disease.

I wonder if the problem is more with the process of how to become a candidate
than with the candidates, and perhaps with the fact that we cannot rank candidates. There is no second choice.

Another part of the disease is a press that panders to those in power (perhaps the internet will help that) and only gives one the appearance of analysis.
Nowadays I think of the press as he said-she said stenographers.