9 ms·

i _really_ wish that "No Vote" was a valid/acceptable option, and there were ramifications if "No Vote" got the majority support. I just don't buy into the "you

i _really_ wish that "No Vote" was a valid/acceptable option, and there were ramifications if "No Vote" got the majority support. I just don't buy into the "you are obligated to vote" choir, or see any value in the "vote against somebody else" vote.

cdubzzz 10y ago
A "No Vote" could basically just be what remains after considering voter turnout[1]. But historically I don't think anyone looks at it that way. For example, in the 2012 presidential election, Obama received 65,915,796 votes (51.1%), Romney received 60,933,500 votes (47.2%) and voter turn out was 54.9%[2]. -- Adjusted for "No Votes", the percentages are: Obama: 28.5% Romney: 26.4% "No Vote": 45.1% -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
- tunesmith 10y ago
  This country doesn't even have the capacity to support 100% voter turnout. It's physically impossible in a great many precincts due to the constraints the various legislations have put in place, whether it's voter id laws, number of available machines, etc.
bargl 10y ago
I kinda feel like that is Gary Johnson... I mean I personally agree with a lot of what he says, but most people consider it a throw away vote. For me it's a vote that says, even though I do think one candidate is less bad than another. I strongly dislike Trump/Clinton. Please come back with better options next year. Also I'd love it if he would win, but I'm a realist mostly I'm just telling both parties they miss my vote.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Voting for Johnson isn't a wasted vote, if the Libertarian Party can start showing double-digits, they will start getting invited to debates etc. Until they are invited to televised debates, they will indeed remain a joke.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  that's still very semantically different than the suggested "vote of no confidence" option that OP proposed.
- jhugg 10y ago
  I’m sympathetic, but as someone who remembers the 2000 election and how it was clearly altered by a third party candidate, with actual serious ramifications (war, etc…), I can’t support this view (at least not in a state that might matter). If you don’t vote for a plausible candidate, then you lose the right to complain when you don’t like what happens. "I didn’t vote for him/her”, isn’t a valid excuse unless you voted against him/her. I recognize this is a dissapointing and compromised viewpoint, but there are literally lives on the line.
  - EvanAnderson 10y ago
    Voting for a third-party candidate is a vote against Trump and Clinton. There are "serious ramifications", to my mind, under both a Clinton or Trump presidency. Neither is any worse to me. The best outcome of the upcoming US Presidential election, as I see it, is an eventual "major"-party winner having such weak popular support as to cause their party to distance itself from the President. A Trump or Clinton with no popular mandate and lack of support from their party is what I'd certainly like.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    I can't do that. I can't vote for someone that I feel is a terrible choice that will have serious ramifications without actually believing in them. I won't send the message that I want a candidate unless I actually want them. I'm not voting against a candidate, i'm voting for one. And if there is nobody that represents me, i'm not going to vote. I'm not going to show approval for one of the candidates that I don't actually support, and i'm not going to feel like it's "my fault" when one of them wins.
thr0waway1239 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6u0utMpFXo&t=0m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6u0utMpFXo&t=0m55s Couldn't help it..
chimeracoder 10y ago
> i _really_ wish that "No Vote" was a valid/acceptable option, and there were ramifications if "No Vote" got the majority support. I just don't buy into the "you are obligated to vote" choir, or see any value in the "vote against somebody else" vote. In the presidential election, this is practically never going to happen, because the two-party system is a stable system[0], and they will maneuver to ensure that there is never a plurality of voters who dislike either (major-party) candidate enough not to vote for them[1]. That said, this does not hold for other races, such as Congressional races (or state-wide and local races). It's not uncommon to see an uncontested incumbent win with only a thin majority of the vote, due to undervoting. In that case, the electorate has signaled that they're ready for a primary or general election challenge, and this is often what happens in the next election cycle. [0] in the literal sense [1] At the national level, not locally. That is, regional parties have been successful to a degree (see: American Independent Party, which was essentially a Southern segregationist party).
devin 10y ago
"Obligated to vote" is not how I'd put it, personally. Choosing not to vote is your right, but frequently the arguments I hear from people against doing so are things like "It doesn't make a difference, they're both liars" or "I don't follow politics". I don't find these reasons, on their own, to be particularly good reasons not to vote. It's the apathy that gets the choir singing. People are well within their rights to not vote, but my experience has been that the majority of people I've spoken with simply do not care to understand the impact that one candidate being elected over another may have on their lives, their family's lives. I find that irresponsible. Long story short, I support not voting insofar as the person not voting has given it some modicum of thoughtful consideration, and understands the ways in which the candidates, however terrible they might be, will affect our country if elected.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  > but my experience has been that the majority of people I've spoken with simply do not care to understand the impact that one candidate being elected over another may have on their lives Here's the impact. If you vote for my team everything will be super cool and awesome. Vote for the other team and democracy dies and the terrorists win. This has been the political narrative since the beginning of time. I'll go ahead and argue the unpopular opinion. The more dismissive the population is of politics the more empowered they are to take direct action and have a real impact of their livelihood. Instead of binging on mainstream news for a hours a night, you could be broadening your horizons in terms of fitness, education and building on personal relationships. In my experience people who are nuanced in mainstream national politics are divisive and generally unpleasant to be around because they think they know what's best for you. There's a reason it's socially unacceptable to bring up politics (and religion). It's polarizing and devoid of objectivity.
  - jish 10y ago
    There are more than two decisions. Vote for a third party. Help them get federal funding and onto the debate stage. No, you should not spend every evening absorbing politics. But you should spend a few hours one time looking at (all of) the options and their positions.
danielhooper 10y ago
No vote is an option we've always had, it's just not voting, and we've been dealing with the nasty ramifications of the majority population "no voting" every election season (see: https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_current_members_of_the_U.S._Congress https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_current_members_of_the_U.S._...).
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > No vote is an option we've always had, it's just not voting No, it's undervoting. Not voting (not casting a ballot at all) is very different from casting an empty ballot (or casting a vote of no confidence). The difference is massive. Undervoting demonstrates active disaffection with all available candidates. Refraining from voting entirely demonstrates apathy (insufficient interest) towards the election at hand.
  - cdubzzz 10y ago
    Is this a thing that is actually tracked by anyone? In a quick search I didn't see any info about it for the US. I haven't ever voted, but if this were an actual tabulation in elections, I absolutely would. If not, is there really any difference between a no vote and a protest vote?
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      > Is this a thing that is actually tracked by anyone? In a quick search I didn't see any info about it for the US. I haven't ever voted, but if this were an actual tabulation in elections, I absolutely would. Yes, it is. Both write-in votes and undervotes are tracked. For example, this is how New York reports the certified results: http://vote.nyc.ny.us/html/results/results.shtml http://vote.nyc.ny.us/html/results/results.shtml . Note that every write-in candidate is separately listed, including candidates who aren't even valid (Zephyr Teachout does not live in the 7th Congressional District, but two people wrote her in anyway). And the number of undervotes are separately listed as well. Your local elections board/town clerk/etc. may present them differently, obviously, but they very much are required to track all votes, rather than simply ignoring all ballots that don't count towards one of the listed candidates.
witty_username 10y ago
But it is, here in India. Search about NOTA.
aidenn0 10y ago
Something other than the plurality voting system would greatly improve this. The "vote against somebody else" is a form of strategic voting, and a propensity for strategic voting is seen as a major flaw in a voting system (deterministic voting systems can never completely eliminate strategic voting, but there are systems that are far better). Interestingly enough it seems like there is no federal rule barring states from adopting non-plurality voting systems for the president, as it is still technically the state governments that appoint the electors, and the constitution only requires that it not be "...in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The House of Representatives elections rules are established with a lot more federal oversight, so I have no clue if non-plurality voting systems could be easily accomplished at the state level. Proportional representation would be specifically banned by 2 U.S. Code § 2c though.
- rattray 10y ago
  > but there are systems that are far better Where could one learn more about these?
  - tunesmith 10y ago
    Not the internet, that's for sure. There's so much misinformation out there. From the Instant Runoff people claiming "ranked voting" as their moniker (ranked ballots are GOOD, but IRV is a bad counting method for single-winner elections), to wikipedia improperly describing Condorcet voting but rejecting efforts to modify it, to the various arguments that speak glowingly about "top-two" primaries, it's a mess. I've gotten very into this whole subject in the past - I'm generally in favor of a "Condorcet Winner Interstate Compact", sort of like the national popular vote compact except for Condorcet Winners, but I basically stopped when I realized that even if you had a perfect voting method that perfectly captured the public will, it doesn't matter if the voters are poorly educated. Better to have even a flawed voting method that encourages voters to self-educate, than a perfect voting method that encourages people to stay ignorant. I am not sure how many third-party voters realize that Trump wins if no one reaches 270 EVs. Anyway, I am not sure how to find a voting method that encourages people to self-educate, but in general that's part of a wider subject on how to reduce willful ignorance in the world, which is pretty fascinating to think about.
fizzbatter 10y ago
Not to mention, in this primary race.. what the hell do i vote for? With this stupid voting system (first past the post) i am dammed to not vote for who i agree with or believe in, but rather some strategic vote move. I totally agree with voting locally, but voting for for a president.. especially this year, is a difficult to comprehend for me personally.
- dmix 10y ago
  Then you probably shouldn't vote. Nothing wrong with that, despite what some absolutist people say. Maybe some day in the future you will invest enough time in understanding how it works and where you stand (even it's it's still 'neither'). Fortunately sites like this now exist to make it easier to take that step.

cdubzzz 10y ago

A "No Vote" could basically just be what remains after considering voter turnout[1]. But historically I don't think anyone looks at it that way. For example, in the 2012 presidential election, Obama received 65,915,796 votes (51.1%), Romney received 60,933,500 votes (47.2%) and voter turn out was 54.9%[2]. -- Adjusted for "No Votes", the percentages are: Obama: 28.5% Romney: 26.4% "No Vote": 45.1% -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

tunesmith 10y ago
This country doesn't even have the capacity to support 100% voter turnout. It's physically impossible in a great many precincts due to the constraints the various legislations have put in place, whether it's voter id laws, number of available machines, etc.

bargl 10y ago

I kinda feel like that is Gary Johnson... I mean I personally agree with a lot of what he says, but most people consider it a throw away vote. For me it's a vote that says, even though I do think one candidate is less bad than another. I strongly dislike Trump/Clinton. Please come back with better options next year. Also I'd love it if he would win, but I'm a realist mostly I'm just telling both parties they miss my vote.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Voting for Johnson isn't a wasted vote, if the Libertarian Party can start showing double-digits, they will start getting invited to debates etc. Until they are invited to televised debates, they will indeed remain a joke.
metaphorm 10y ago
that's still very semantically different than the suggested "vote of no confidence" option that OP proposed.
jhugg 10y ago
I’m sympathetic, but as someone who remembers the 2000 election and how it was clearly altered by a third party candidate, with actual serious ramifications (war, etc…), I can’t support this view (at least not in a state that might matter). If you don’t vote for a plausible candidate, then you lose the right to complain when you don’t like what happens. "I didn’t vote for him/her”, isn’t a valid excuse unless you voted against him/her. I recognize this is a dissapointing and compromised viewpoint, but there are literally lives on the line.
- EvanAnderson 10y ago
  Voting for a third-party candidate is a vote against Trump and Clinton. There are "serious ramifications", to my mind, under both a Clinton or Trump presidency. Neither is any worse to me. The best outcome of the upcoming US Presidential election, as I see it, is an eventual "major"-party winner having such weak popular support as to cause their party to distance itself from the President. A Trump or Clinton with no popular mandate and lack of support from their party is what I'd certainly like.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  I can't do that. I can't vote for someone that I feel is a terrible choice that will have serious ramifications without actually believing in them. I won't send the message that I want a candidate unless I actually want them. I'm not voting against a candidate, i'm voting for one. And if there is nobody that represents me, i'm not going to vote. I'm not going to show approval for one of the candidates that I don't actually support, and i'm not going to feel like it's "my fault" when one of them wins.

thr0waway1239 10y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6u0utMpFXo&t=0m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6u0utMpFXo&t=0m55s Couldn't help it..

chimeracoder 10y ago

> i _really_ wish that "No Vote" was a valid/acceptable option, and there were ramifications if "No Vote" got the majority support. I just don't buy into the "you are obligated to vote" choir, or see any value in the "vote against somebody else" vote. In the presidential election, this is practically never going to happen, because the two-party system is a stable system[0], and they will maneuver to ensure that there is never a plurality of voters who dislike either (major-party) candidate enough not to vote for them[1]. That said, this does not hold for other races, such as Congressional races (or state-wide and local races). It's not uncommon to see an uncontested incumbent win with only a thin majority of the vote, due to undervoting. In that case, the electorate has signaled that they're ready for a primary or general election challenge, and this is often what happens in the next election cycle. [0] in the literal sense [1] At the national level, not locally. That is, regional parties have been successful to a degree (see: American Independent Party, which was essentially a Southern segregationist party).

devin 10y ago

"Obligated to vote" is not how I'd put it, personally. Choosing not to vote is your right, but frequently the arguments I hear from people against doing so are things like "It doesn't make a difference, they're both liars" or "I don't follow politics". I don't find these reasons, on their own, to be particularly good reasons not to vote. It's the apathy that gets the choir singing. People are well within their rights to not vote, but my experience has been that the majority of people I've spoken with simply do not care to understand the impact that one candidate being elected over another may have on their lives, their family's lives. I find that irresponsible. Long story short, I support not voting insofar as the person not voting has given it some modicum of thoughtful consideration, and understands the ways in which the candidates, however terrible they might be, will affect our country if elected.

smokeyj 10y ago
> but my experience has been that the majority of people I've spoken with simply do not care to understand the impact that one candidate being elected over another may have on their lives Here's the impact. If you vote for my team everything will be super cool and awesome. Vote for the other team and democracy dies and the terrorists win. This has been the political narrative since the beginning of time. I'll go ahead and argue the unpopular opinion. The more dismissive the population is of politics the more empowered they are to take direct action and have a real impact of their livelihood. Instead of binging on mainstream news for a hours a night, you could be broadening your horizons in terms of fitness, education and building on personal relationships. In my experience people who are nuanced in mainstream national politics are divisive and generally unpleasant to be around because they think they know what's best for you. There's a reason it's socially unacceptable to bring up politics (and religion). It's polarizing and devoid of objectivity.
- jish 10y ago
  There are more than two decisions. Vote for a third party. Help them get federal funding and onto the debate stage. No, you should not spend every evening absorbing politics. But you should spend a few hours one time looking at (all of) the options and their positions.

danielhooper 10y ago

No vote is an option we've always had, it's just not voting, and we've been dealing with the nasty ramifications of the majority population "no voting" every election season (see: https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_current_members_of_the_U.S._Congress https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_current_members_of_the_U.S._...).

chimeracoder 10y ago
> No vote is an option we've always had, it's just not voting No, it's undervoting. Not voting (not casting a ballot at all) is very different from casting an empty ballot (or casting a vote of no confidence). The difference is massive. Undervoting demonstrates active disaffection with all available candidates. Refraining from voting entirely demonstrates apathy (insufficient interest) towards the election at hand.
- cdubzzz 10y ago
  Is this a thing that is actually tracked by anyone? In a quick search I didn't see any info about it for the US. I haven't ever voted, but if this were an actual tabulation in elections, I absolutely would. If not, is there really any difference between a no vote and a protest vote?
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > Is this a thing that is actually tracked by anyone? In a quick search I didn't see any info about it for the US. I haven't ever voted, but if this were an actual tabulation in elections, I absolutely would. Yes, it is. Both write-in votes and undervotes are tracked. For example, this is how New York reports the certified results: http://vote.nyc.ny.us/html/results/results.shtml http://vote.nyc.ny.us/html/results/results.shtml . Note that every write-in candidate is separately listed, including candidates who aren't even valid (Zephyr Teachout does not live in the 7th Congressional District, but two people wrote her in anyway). And the number of undervotes are separately listed as well. Your local elections board/town clerk/etc. may present them differently, obviously, but they very much are required to track all votes, rather than simply ignoring all ballots that don't count towards one of the listed candidates.

witty_username 10y ago

But it is, here in India. Search about NOTA.

aidenn0 10y ago

Something other than the plurality voting system would greatly improve this. The "vote against somebody else" is a form of strategic voting, and a propensity for strategic voting is seen as a major flaw in a voting system (deterministic voting systems can never completely eliminate strategic voting, but there are systems that are far better). Interestingly enough it seems like there is no federal rule barring states from adopting non-plurality voting systems for the president, as it is still technically the state governments that appoint the electors, and the constitution only requires that it not be "...in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The House of Representatives elections rules are established with a lot more federal oversight, so I have no clue if non-plurality voting systems could be easily accomplished at the state level. Proportional representation would be specifically banned by 2 U.S. Code § 2c though.

rattray 10y ago
> but there are systems that are far better Where could one learn more about these?
- tunesmith 10y ago
  Not the internet, that's for sure. There's so much misinformation out there. From the Instant Runoff people claiming "ranked voting" as their moniker (ranked ballots are GOOD, but IRV is a bad counting method for single-winner elections), to wikipedia improperly describing Condorcet voting but rejecting efforts to modify it, to the various arguments that speak glowingly about "top-two" primaries, it's a mess. I've gotten very into this whole subject in the past - I'm generally in favor of a "Condorcet Winner Interstate Compact", sort of like the national popular vote compact except for Condorcet Winners, but I basically stopped when I realized that even if you had a perfect voting method that perfectly captured the public will, it doesn't matter if the voters are poorly educated. Better to have even a flawed voting method that encourages voters to self-educate, than a perfect voting method that encourages people to stay ignorant. I am not sure how many third-party voters realize that Trump wins if no one reaches 270 EVs. Anyway, I am not sure how to find a voting method that encourages people to self-educate, but in general that's part of a wider subject on how to reduce willful ignorance in the world, which is pretty fascinating to think about.

fizzbatter 10y ago

Not to mention, in this primary race.. what the hell do i vote for? With this stupid voting system (first past the post) i am dammed to not vote for who i agree with or believe in, but rather some strategic vote move. I totally agree with voting locally, but voting for for a president.. especially this year, is a difficult to comprehend for me personally.

dmix 10y ago
Then you probably shouldn't vote. Nothing wrong with that, despite what some absolutist people say. Maybe some day in the future you will invest enough time in understanding how it works and where you stand (even it's it's still 'neither'). Fortunately sites like this now exist to make it easier to take that step.