• 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

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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
 
I wouldn't mind, but would this affect anything positively? If politicians see higher than average amounts of "none-of-the-above" votes are they likely to act any differently than if all those who cast "none-of-the-above" had simply sat out? I'm not sure they would.
 
(notes the irony of not having a None of the Above option on this poll)
 
We have endless investigations now; if this was adopted, we would have endless elections, oh, wait........
 
The question is too vague to give a decent answer to. It depends heavily on the details of what the "none of the above" option means.

What happens if "none of the above" gets the most votes?
Do all the parties have to come up with new candidates and have another election?
Can the parties run the same person for the subsequent election or is that person barred from showing up on the ballot again?
If they're barred from showing up again, for how long?
What happens to that office until the repeat elections can be held? Does the current candidate stay in power? What if term limits prevent that? Does the office just sit empty?
 
The question is too vague to give a decent answer to. It depends heavily on the details of what the "none of the above" option means.

What happens if "none of the above" gets the most votes?
Do all the parties have to come up with new candidates and have another election?
Can the parties run the same person for the subsequent election or is that person barred from showing up on the ballot again?
If they're barred from showing up again, for how long?
What happens to that office until the repeat elections can be held? Does the current candidate stay in power? What if term limits prevent that? Does the office just sit empty?

A " None Of The Above " majority would require another election. Anybody could still run.
/
 
A " None Of The Above " majority would require another election. Anybody could still run.
/

Doesn't answer any of the other questions, but that by itself is about enough to get a "no" out of me. If there's nothing to stop the parties from running the same putz again, what's the point?
 
I wouldn't mind, but would this affect anything positively? If politicians see higher than average amounts of "none-of-the-above" votes are they likely to act any differently than if all those who cast "none-of-the-above" had simply sat out? I'm not sure they would.

One big difference is that you've demonstrated that you're willing to go in to actually vote, vice just never voting anyways. This means there are votes to get.
 
Would you support a " None Of The Above " option for every list of candidates for election

Hell, no!

The point of an election is to choose someone, not to not-choose anyone, which is exactly what would happen if "none of the above" wins the most/majority of votes.
 
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

One of the best political campaigns ever -



The sad part is that Mr. Gravy wouldn't be allowed in the Democrat party these days.
 
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
Just don't fill in the bubble or punch the chad.
 
One big difference is that you've demonstrated that you're willing to go in to actually vote, vice just never voting anyways. This means there are votes to get.

I guess it's a little more information. But I'm not sure politicians would in actuality end up focusing more on those who voted "none" than those who just sat out. Politicians in Nevada, where it is an option, never really seem to care about it anyway.
 
Just don't fill in the bubble or punch the chad.

Not the same. " None Of The Above " would give numerical strength to the rejection of the candidates. Not filling in or punching loses that numeric.
/
 
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

I picked other. I would support a none of the above option. But only as a means of allowing someone abstain from that particular race.Not so enough people can cause a restart in the primaries and general election.
 
I want a frying pan or fire option when I vote.
 
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

I'd rather we have a ranked choice voting system.

A "none of these" option could be included, but I think ranked choice would better reflect the opinion of voters.
 
I'd rather we have a ranked choice voting system.

A "none of these" option could be included, but I think ranked choice would better reflect the opinion of voters.

That works. The important point is sometimes, and the recent Presidential election 2016, was a case in point. I did not like either candidate and had many friends who felt the same way. We need strength in our voting opportunities that cull out the Uniparty system bought and sold by Big Money. Money has power because of the Money. People have power because of numbers. This makes useful and real power against the Money. If we don't do this, Corporatism/fascism will buy the 'gubmint.
/
 
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

It's stupid. What happens if "none of the above" wins?
 
It's stupid. What happens if "none of the above" wins?

The major parties would realize that their choice of candidates is flawed and would have to select candidates with more populist appeal instead of Corporate appeal. That's the point. It is to put the power of the "people" back in politics.
/
 
The major parties would realize that their choice of candidates is flawed and would have to select candidates with more populist appeal instead of Corporate appeal. That's the point. It is to put the power of the "people" back in politics.
/

But, you didn't understand the question. Let's say that the presidential election in 2016 had a choice of "none of the above" and that choice won. The election is over. None of the above won. Who is going to be president? Or, are you saying that if "none of the above" wins then you rerun the election until there is a real person winner, theoretically with different candidates? Or, do you let Obama continue being president for a while or just run the country with no president until one is elected?
 
But, you didn't understand the question. Let's say that the presidential election in 2016 had a choice of "none of the above" and that choice won. The election is over. None of the above won. Who is going to be president? Or, are you saying that if "none of the above" wins then you rerun the election until there is a real person winner, theoretically with different candidates? Or, do you let Obama continue being president for a while or just run the country with no president until one is elected?

You didn't understand. The point of " None Of The Above " is re-rack and try again.
/
 
Back
Top Bottom