I was talking with a buddy of mine today and he brought something up that I think has some merit to it, especially with the field of candidates we have right now on both sides.

He said that in addition to the Democratic and Republican candidates on the ballot, there should be a place to vote for "None of the above".

If the "None" punch gets the most votes’ then nobody wins and they have to have a do-over.

I'd add this to his idea; if the "None" wins, then anybody on the first ballot is ineligible to run on the do-over.

What do you think?

No, but I'd like to see a top-two 50+1 runoff, meaning that if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, we must vote again for only the top two voter-getters. That way, people can vote for any third-party candidate they wish without worrying about "throwing away" their votes. It would also encourage third-parties.

(And no, I do not support "instant run-off voting" - I believe in one person, one vote.)

I'd also like to see the presidential primaries eliminated with a system like this. Then Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, and all the others can be on the same ballot as Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc. We then have to vote again for the top two vote-getters unless someone gets 50% + 1 vote.

Andrew

That's not a bad idea either.

The one caveat I'd have to add to that is that there can be no more than 30 days of stupid TV commercials prior to either election!

I'm with Andrew. A none of the above is essentially a no vote. We can already do that!

The instant run off system worries me. One person, one vote is the way to go. It's simple and having to vote again balances the ability to just pick people. It needs to be a deliberate process. There also needs to be some cost involved, or we marginalize it, IMHO.

I'm not against the instant runoff - just pick your first, second, third choices...what's wrong with that? Probably more honest and representative a result that asking everyone to revote.

Well, I simply subscribe to the "one person, one vote" concept. I don't think we ought to be voting for "second choice" which probably means something different to different people. Some people might hate their second choice but think they have to pick someone they've heard of, then wind up supporting someone they don't even like.

You get to pick one candidate per election. Period. Have a second election for a run-off. No need to make our elections any more complicated than that.

Andrew

How about everyone gets to vote and the winner is the person that gets the most votes?

I like that idea.

Great, then let's forget about third parties once and for all, since our current system is a defacto two party system. Having a 50% + 1 run-off of the top two candidates would encourage people to vote for their favorite candidate vs. "not throwing my vote away to vote for the candidate I dislike the least."

Andrew

Andrew, I think that your idea for primaries is simple, straightforward and very good. If we can completely eliminate the two party "least of evils" mindset from the polls, we will be a less cynical electorate. Nobody minds voting twice in a contentious race with quality choices that need to be narrowed by the process. If I understand you correctly, it is inclusive of a broad field in the initial go-round, and focused for any further run-off. I like it.

"How about everyone gets to vote and the winner is the person that gets the most votes?"

Pluralities are not the best way to go in high-stakes elections. You really need the 50%+1 majority to legitimize the winner.

Again, I see little difference between calling people back for a revote and asking them to indicate a second choice on their ballot. Here's a cut-n-paste from an editorial in the Juneau Empire about the benefits of runoff voting:

"* Increases voter turnout by giving voters more choices and confidence that a vote for their favorite candidate will not be wasted.

"* Eliminates spoilers - candidates with remote chances of winning who siphon votes from front runners.

"* Promotes positive, issue-based campaigns while serving as a deterrent to mudslinging tactics as candidates would be more reliant upon each other for pass-along support.

"* Preserves the one-person, one-vote principle.

"* Does not favor one party over another. IRV is politically neutral.

"* Costs far less than a separate runoff election. The estimated cost to launch the system statewide is $175,000. It costs $840,000 to conduct a statewide election, while runoff elections in Anchorage cost $100,000 each. Even if the cost will actually be much higher, as critics claim, IRV will still be cost-justified.

"* Eliminates the need for voters to return to the polls for runoffs. Traditionally voter participation falls off significantly for runoffs."

I like Andrew's idea too.

Our system has worked for over 200 years, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You think a system that requires our Congressmen and Senators to spend an ever increasing proportion of their time raising money instead of actually doing the work of the people isn't broken?

Andrew

Seriously flawed

Of the People, By the People, and For the People

superceded by

Who, Who, and What, are you nuts.

Who, Who and What......

Is that like Larry, Darrel and Darrel?

No, more like Moe, Larry and Curly.

I want more parties. Don't care so much about how it happens. I also don't want a cluster***k, which explains my reluctance for the instant run off.

Push comes to shove though, I'll support it over the broken mess we have now.

The two-party system is a direct result of the winner-take-all "majority rules" system that we have in this country. It's simple mathematics. Only the largest parties (usually only two) with the most voters ever get to hold the reins of government - the small parties simply don't have enough votes for a plurality, let alone a majority.

For a viable multi-party system to exist, you have to have a system based on proportional representation in the legislature. For example, if an election is held and 30% vote GOP, 40% vote Dem, 10% vote Libertarian, and 20% vote Green party, then the seats in the congress are apportioned the same way. With this kind of voting you are not electing particular people, but rather party platforms, and party designees will fill those seats.

Yes, it would take a major constitutional rewrite for this to happen, which is why it is very, very unlikely to happen in anyone's lifetime anytime soon.

Missing said: I want more parties

Me Too! More beer (good beer only!), Buffalo wings, garlic bread and chips!

This will sound way too socialist for some, but it's an idea I've been thinking of for the last few years.

What if all political advertising and contributions were banned, and all media outlets (TV, radio, newspapers, others) were required to provide free equal time to all candidates for all elected positions?

I don't know if I think it's a great idea but it certainly has some merit. After all, most of the money in political campaigns goes to pay for TV ads. If those ads didn't cost money there would be no need to raise so much money.

Andrew