4 ms·

"None of the Above" (see Bruster's Millions (Movie)) really needs to be an option...

by mjevans 2y ago

hammock 2y ago
It is. It’s called a protest vote, and it’s done by casting a blank ballot
- pksebben 2y ago
  ...which does just about as much as voting (that is, precious little). If we're ever going to claw ourselves out of this (or any) mess, we need ranked choice or something like it. The giant douche / turd sandwich dichotomy needs to end, for everyone on any side of the political spectrum.
  - hammock 2y ago
    > which does just about as much as voting Did you expect something else? No matter what system of voting we use, unless we go back to only white landowning men can vote or something (doubt we want to do that), you can’t avoid the fact that 160 million+ people vote together for President. The most viable solution looks less like changing to ranked choice and more like returning more governing power to lower levels of government (state and local) where there is less competition
    - pksebben 2y ago
      Wait, though. It's not that there are too many voters. It's that the system of voting we use doesn't connect the vox populi to the means of social control. If you're given the choice between two bad options, you aren't really given the choice. There's massive cross-aisle support for a lot of things (proper healthcare, more support for working families, lower inflation, holding the banks to some kind of standard, reducing corruption, etc.) that we could actually move the needle on if our votes mattered, but because the two parties have us between a rock (whoever we identify as our party) and a hard place (whoever the other guys are) it doesn't really matter who we vote for. Now, I'm willing to concede that what you're talking about might be a thing, but there's really no way to know until we actually fix what we have and see if that becomes a problem. We've never really tried what we're supposed to have in the modern era. Frankly, I'd like to see some format of direct democracy rather than representative. Always seemed a little like an obvious grift to me.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    If you want to change the way voting works in the US (and oh boy do I), you first must win an election in the current system to gain enough power to do that. So many american leftists just seem to ignore that and it makes things very difficult.
    - pksebben 2y ago
      Not quite so, ballot initiatives are actually the best bet. They've been successful in local politics primarily so far, but the initial results are promising (1). You're right, that the closer you get to that core of federal power the more resistance you come up against, but once there's a powerful enough popular groundswell (that is I suppose, and if and not a when) you can move to mass protests, general strikes, guillotines, etc. This is why it's important to talk about, esp. around those who don't really know about it yet. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
- bluGill 2y ago
  I vote third parties. Blank counts as don't care, while a third party says I care and not you. When third parties get votes the majors pay attention less those third parties win. I often am blank on things where I cannot find any information and so cannot have an imformed vote.
- kibwen 2y ago
  I'm not sure who told you that casting a blank ballot represents a "protest vote", but I assure you that is not how our current voting system is set up. To be clear, voting systems should have explicit options for protest votes; an explicit "I reject all candidates" option. Unfortunately, ours does not, by design; a blank ballot instead means "I endorse all candidates". Pretending otherwise will not change this.
  - hammock 2y ago
    These people did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Playing the tape to the end, what happens is the protest votes win? Start a new election cycle? What happens if that cycle now extends past the end of the current admin’s term which cause their time in office to extend beyond 2 terms? How do you then prevent the incumbent from using that to their advantage to stay in office? Jeebus, I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but dems the times we live in I guess.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- rwmj 2y ago
  Does the US count "spoiled ballots" separately? It's a thing in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoilt_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoilt_vote
coherentpony 2y ago
It likely will never be an option. You could consider spoiling your ballot instead? I have no idea if spoilt ballots are counted in America, though.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > You could consider spoiling your ballot instead? No. Either vote for one of the third party candidates (doesn't much matter which one), or vote write-in for a fictional character or "none of the above" or something.
- nradov 2y ago
  Ballots are generally counted as long as they're legible. Voters aren't required to pick a candidate in every race, they can leave some blank. And in most states there were third party candidates listed as well.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Those rules are established by the states, but in general, they are not. A spoiled ballot is equivalent to no vote. The states do track undercount votes, But they don't mean anything in terms of the law that decides representation.
nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago
That's a vote for Trump in real terms.
thinkingtoilet 2y ago
Or you can be an adult and vote for the best option. Harris and the Democratic establishment are certainly not saints and I could rant for hours at how bad they are, but she was a competent woman and at least tried to float solutions to our problems as opposed to being a party of billionaires who is happy to burn it all down.
- ropetin 2y ago
  Exactly this! I just don't understand how this is hard for otherwise competent people to grasp. The explanation I've used in the past is the choices are either being stabbed in the face or kicked in the balls. Ideally I'd not have either, but forced between one or the other I know which one I'd pick.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    David Sedaris: “I look at these people and can't quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention? To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. "Can I interest you in the chicken?" she asks. "Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it? To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.”
- philosopher1234 2y ago
  True, she was a party of billionaires that want to burn it all down more slowly. GOP-lite, as they say.
  - cratermoon 2y ago
    burn it all down nicely
  - thinkingtoilet 2y ago
    The economies under Clinton, Obama, and Biden suggest otherwise. But why bother sticking to reality.
HWR_14 2y ago
How would that change anything? If all the people who didn't vote voted "none of the above", Trump still wins.
- mjevans 2y ago
  I could see a majority having voted for None of the Above; which if it won would result in NONE of the candidates winning. It would also force candidates to address a base rather than trying to just be 'not the other one'.

"None of the Above" (see Bruster's Millions (Movie)) really needs to be an option...

hammock 2y ago

It is. It’s called a protest vote, and it’s done by casting a blank ballot

pksebben 2y ago
...which does just about as much as voting (that is, precious little). If we're ever going to claw ourselves out of this (or any) mess, we need ranked choice or something like it. The giant douche / turd sandwich dichotomy needs to end, for everyone on any side of the political spectrum.
- hammock 2y ago
  > which does just about as much as voting Did you expect something else? No matter what system of voting we use, unless we go back to only white landowning men can vote or something (doubt we want to do that), you can’t avoid the fact that 160 million+ people vote together for President. The most viable solution looks less like changing to ranked choice and more like returning more governing power to lower levels of government (state and local) where there is less competition
  - pksebben 2y ago
    Wait, though. It's not that there are too many voters. It's that the system of voting we use doesn't connect the vox populi to the means of social control. If you're given the choice between two bad options, you aren't really given the choice. There's massive cross-aisle support for a lot of things (proper healthcare, more support for working families, lower inflation, holding the banks to some kind of standard, reducing corruption, etc.) that we could actually move the needle on if our votes mattered, but because the two parties have us between a rock (whoever we identify as our party) and a hard place (whoever the other guys are) it doesn't really matter who we vote for. Now, I'm willing to concede that what you're talking about might be a thing, but there's really no way to know until we actually fix what we have and see if that becomes a problem. We've never really tried what we're supposed to have in the modern era. Frankly, I'd like to see some format of direct democracy rather than representative. Always seemed a little like an obvious grift to me.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  If you want to change the way voting works in the US (and oh boy do I), you first must win an election in the current system to gain enough power to do that. So many american leftists just seem to ignore that and it makes things very difficult.
  - pksebben 2y ago
    Not quite so, ballot initiatives are actually the best bet. They've been successful in local politics primarily so far, but the initial results are promising (1). You're right, that the closer you get to that core of federal power the more resistance you come up against, but once there's a powerful enough popular groundswell (that is I suppose, and if and not a when) you can move to mass protests, general strikes, guillotines, etc. This is why it's important to talk about, esp. around those who don't really know about it yet. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
bluGill 2y ago
I vote third parties. Blank counts as don't care, while a third party says I care and not you. When third parties get votes the majors pay attention less those third parties win. I often am blank on things where I cannot find any information and so cannot have an imformed vote.
kibwen 2y ago
I'm not sure who told you that casting a blank ballot represents a "protest vote", but I assure you that is not how our current voting system is set up. To be clear, voting systems should have explicit options for protest votes; an explicit "I reject all candidates" option. Unfortunately, ours does not, by design; a blank ballot instead means "I endorse all candidates". Pretending otherwise will not change this.
- hammock 2y ago
  These people did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote
- dylan604 2y ago
  Playing the tape to the end, what happens is the protest votes win? Start a new election cycle? What happens if that cycle now extends past the end of the current admin’s term which cause their time in office to extend beyond 2 terms? How do you then prevent the incumbent from using that to their advantage to stay in office? Jeebus, I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but dems the times we live in I guess.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
rwmj 2y ago
Does the US count "spoiled ballots" separately? It's a thing in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoilt_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoilt_vote

coherentpony 2y ago

It likely will never be an option. You could consider spoiling your ballot instead? I have no idea if spoilt ballots are counted in America, though.

tbrownaw 2y ago
> You could consider spoiling your ballot instead? No. Either vote for one of the third party candidates (doesn't much matter which one), or vote write-in for a fictional character or "none of the above" or something.
nradov 2y ago
Ballots are generally counted as long as they're legible. Voters aren't required to pick a candidate in every race, they can leave some blank. And in most states there were third party candidates listed as well.
shadowgovt 2y ago
Those rules are established by the states, but in general, they are not. A spoiled ballot is equivalent to no vote. The states do track undercount votes, But they don't mean anything in terms of the law that decides representation.

nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago

That's a vote for Trump in real terms.

thinkingtoilet 2y ago

Or you can be an adult and vote for the best option. Harris and the Democratic establishment are certainly not saints and I could rant for hours at how bad they are, but she was a competent woman and at least tried to float solutions to our problems as opposed to being a party of billionaires who is happy to burn it all down.

ropetin 2y ago
Exactly this! I just don't understand how this is hard for otherwise competent people to grasp. The explanation I've used in the past is the choices are either being stabbed in the face or kicked in the balls. Ideally I'd not have either, but forced between one or the other I know which one I'd pick.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  David Sedaris: “I look at these people and can't quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention? To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. "Can I interest you in the chicken?" she asks. "Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it? To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.”
philosopher1234 2y ago
True, she was a party of billionaires that want to burn it all down more slowly. GOP-lite, as they say.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  burn it all down nicely
- thinkingtoilet 2y ago
  The economies under Clinton, Obama, and Biden suggest otherwise. But why bother sticking to reality.

HWR_14 2y ago

How would that change anything? If all the people who didn't vote voted "none of the above", Trump still wins.

mjevans 2y ago
I could see a majority having voted for None of the Above; which if it won would result in NONE of the candidates winning. It would also force candidates to address a base rather than trying to just be 'not the other one'.