• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

None Of The Above

Would you support a " None Of The Above " option for every list of candidates for election

  • YES!

    Votes: 16 55.2%

  • NO!

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Other: please explain

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
DaveFagan said:
How many would support a "None Of The Above" line below candidates for every elected position. I'm Green, third Party, and think many people are dissatisfied with the currnet and past crops of candidates, especially at the National level.

Poll question: Would you support a " None Of The Above " option for every list of candidates for election?

YES!
NO!
Other: please explain
Click to expand...

The purpose of an election is to determine the most popular choice. Whining that you do not like the choices, but could not be bothered to get a better choice onto the ballot, is not a purpose of elections.
 
DaveFagan said:
You didn't understand. The point of " None Of The Above " is re-rack and try again.
/
Click to expand...

The only way that could work is if there was actually a law stating that if "none of the above" won then it was a requirement that all parties field different candidates. Otherwise, in 2016, for example, they might have a runoff election with Hillary and Trump being the only ones allowed on the ballot, as is currently happening in the Senate race in Missouri.
 
Phys251 said:
(notes the irony of not having a None of the Above option on this poll)
Click to expand...

So you're somewhere between or outside of Yes or NO? :roll:
 
Redress said:
The purpose of an election is to determine the most popular choice. Whining that you do not like the choices, but could not be bothered to get a better choice onto the ballot, is not a purpose of elections.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap! How much input do you feel you had in the nomination by their respective parties of Trump or Clinton? Zip, Nada, or Zero? Pick one.
/
 
Moderate Right said:
The only way that could work is if there was actually a law stating that if "none of the above" won then it was a requirement that all parties field different candidates. Otherwise, in 2016, for example, they might have a runoff election with Hillary and Trump being the only ones allowed on the ballot, as is currently happening in the Senate race in Missouri.
Click to expand...

And if " None Of The Above " won the second time, the nominating parties might get the message!
/
 
DaveFagan said:
And if " None Of The Above " won the second time, the nominating parties might get the message!
/
Click to expand...

To get back to reality though, "none of the above" would never win. All it would be is a "third party" vote, taking votes away from the others, but one of the others would still win, just with lesser votes. So, it would accomplish nothing other than, for example, the Libertarian party claiming bragging rights for getting 10% of the vote. Your "none of the above" would have nothing more than the bragging rights of saying that 10% of voters voted for none of the above. So, since there would be a winner, no knew candidates would ever be chosen.
 
Moderate Right said:
To get back to reality though, "none of the above" would never win. All it would be is a "third party" vote, taking votes away from the others, but one of the others would still win, just with lesser votes. So, it would accomplish nothing other than, for example, the Libertarian party claiming bragging rights for getting 10% of the vote. Your "none of the above" would have nothing more than the bragging rights of saying that 10% of voters voted for none of the above. So, since there would be a winner, no knew candidates would ever be chosen.
Click to expand...

Nevada, which has this option, actually had it win five times.
 
Last edited:
SDET said:
It's only symbolic; it has no effect. It's implemented as only a protest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_These_Candidates
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I've been saying in every post. Symbolic means you are a loser. It means nothing more than symbolism. So, even when "None of the above" wins, they still don't win, one of the real candidates does. In other words, it is a totally useless thing because 100,000 votes for a real person still beats 200,000 votes for none of the above. Dave Fagan was trying to claim that this would force the parties to field better candidates but, in reality, it doesn't. It's no different than the symbolic protest vote when a Libertarian gets 10% of the vote but a Republican or Democrat wins the election. And yet, somehow Libertarians are just fine with their symbolism. That's all they want is for everyone to know that they voted for none of the above even though it gets them no where.
 
DaveFagan said:
How many would support a "None Of The Above" line below candidates for every elected position. I'm Green, third Party, and think many people are dissatisfied with the currnet and past crops of candidates, especially at the National level.

Poll question: Would you support a " None Of The Above " option for every list of candidates for election?

YES!
NO!
Other: please explain
Click to expand...

A large portion of American voters vote based on fear. So a none of the above option wouldn't do much. It is the same reason so many won't vote 3rd party. They are so scared of the R or D winning (whichever they are scared of) that they won't deviate.
 
Anagram said:
In Nevada they just let the person with the most votes win unlike holding a new election as suggested here.
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of that. When none of the above wins, time for new election. Preferably new candidates.
/
 
There's already a "none of the above" option. It's called not voting.
 
What would be the point of that voter choice?

Besides a smug satisfaction for some?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom