5 ms·

Perhaps this points towards a larger scale failure in modern forms of "representative" democracy. Since opting out is the only alternative to arbitrarily pickin

Perhaps this points towards a larger scale failure in modern forms of "representative" democracy. Since opting out is the only alternative to arbitrarily picking between unsatisfying options - there's no "none of the above" box on a ballot sheet - it makes sense that voting becomes skewed towards those special interest groups irrationally motivated enough to actually vote. Notice that based on this evidence not voting is actually an entirely rational decision.

sliverstorm 13y ago
there's no "none of the above" box on a ballot sheet I find myself wondering if you've voted before. You can write in anyone you like.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- baddox 13y ago
  In many states, if you write in a candidate for President that is not registered as a candidate in that state, your vote will be invalid, as if you hadn't filled it out at all or spilled ink across the entire thing.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Apparently that's true in California, but I don't see many such invalidation exceptions listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate
    - baddox 13y ago
      I can't find a plain old list, but this Google search is a start: https://www.google.com/search?q=Intent+to+be+a+Write-in+Candidate https://www.google.com/search?q=Intent+to+be+a+Write-in+Cand....
- zenogais 13y ago
  Legitimate thing to wonder I suppose, also a decent ad hominem. I'll elaborate on my point: You are always forced to make a choice - you can write in whomever you want, but you cannot opt to suspend the process and await alternatives. Your expression must always be in the positive, and never in the negative. The implicit attitude is "either offer an alternative or don't vote at all" - so many people opt not to vote. For myself my attitude is something like: There seems to be a root problem within the political process. I don't know what it is. It seems to be rarely talked about. The options presented seem to be within a very narrow and oversimplified spectrum that ignores ambiguity and complexity of any kind. Rather than pick between a bunch of things I don't want or agree with I'll just not vote. Some people choose to vote under these circumstances citing the cynical position of "choosing between the lesser of two evils". I don't.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    you can write in whomever you want, but you cannot opt to suspend the process and await alternatives Ah, it was not clear you meant, an option to reject the candidates and hold another election. also a decent ad hominem Aww, shucks :)
baddox 13y ago
How would the "none of the above" option solve anything? An eligible voter not voting is essentially a "none of the above" vote anyway. You can bet that the perceived legitimacy of a government would start to dwindle if the number of voters dropped below some threshold.
- thejteam 13y ago
  In many organizations with a "NOTA" option in their elections, if NOTA wins then the election is held over again with none of the previous candidates eligible to run.
- jacalata 13y ago
  That's not quite equivalent. An eligible voter not voting might be one who didn't have time to get their drivers licence address updated, or who didn't have time between work and looking after kids to go to the polls, or who was unexpectedly sick, or who didn't care enough to know what was being voted on, or who didn't like any of the options. A voter who voted and said 'None of you' has provably made an affirmative choice to say they don't like any of the options.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Well, for any of those people, they simply chose to not prioritize voting over whatever else they do (with the obvious rare exception of people who had emergencies or circumstances entirely out of their control), so it's really not all that different. The guy who chooses to vote "none of the above" might just have more free time than another guy who doesn't consent to any candidate but didn't make it to the polling location.

sliverstorm 13y ago

there's no "none of the above" box on a ballot sheet I find myself wondering if you've voted before. You can write in anyone you like.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
baddox 13y ago
In many states, if you write in a candidate for President that is not registered as a candidate in that state, your vote will be invalid, as if you hadn't filled it out at all or spilled ink across the entire thing.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Apparently that's true in California, but I don't see many such invalidation exceptions listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate
  - baddox 13y ago
    I can't find a plain old list, but this Google search is a start: https://www.google.com/search?q=Intent+to+be+a+Write-in+Candidate https://www.google.com/search?q=Intent+to+be+a+Write-in+Cand....
zenogais 13y ago
Legitimate thing to wonder I suppose, also a decent ad hominem. I'll elaborate on my point: You are always forced to make a choice - you can write in whomever you want, but you cannot opt to suspend the process and await alternatives. Your expression must always be in the positive, and never in the negative. The implicit attitude is "either offer an alternative or don't vote at all" - so many people opt not to vote. For myself my attitude is something like: There seems to be a root problem within the political process. I don't know what it is. It seems to be rarely talked about. The options presented seem to be within a very narrow and oversimplified spectrum that ignores ambiguity and complexity of any kind. Rather than pick between a bunch of things I don't want or agree with I'll just not vote. Some people choose to vote under these circumstances citing the cynical position of "choosing between the lesser of two evils". I don't.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  you can write in whomever you want, but you cannot opt to suspend the process and await alternatives Ah, it was not clear you meant, an option to reject the candidates and hold another election. also a decent ad hominem Aww, shucks :)

baddox 13y ago

How would the "none of the above" option solve anything? An eligible voter not voting is essentially a "none of the above" vote anyway. You can bet that the perceived legitimacy of a government would start to dwindle if the number of voters dropped below some threshold.

thejteam 13y ago
In many organizations with a "NOTA" option in their elections, if NOTA wins then the election is held over again with none of the previous candidates eligible to run.
jacalata 13y ago
That's not quite equivalent. An eligible voter not voting might be one who didn't have time to get their drivers licence address updated, or who didn't have time between work and looking after kids to go to the polls, or who was unexpectedly sick, or who didn't care enough to know what was being voted on, or who didn't like any of the options. A voter who voted and said 'None of you' has provably made an affirmative choice to say they don't like any of the options.
- baddox 13y ago
  Well, for any of those people, they simply chose to not prioritize voting over whatever else they do (with the obvious rare exception of people who had emergencies or circumstances entirely out of their control), so it's really not all that different. The guy who chooses to vote "none of the above" might just have more free time than another guy who doesn't consent to any candidate but didn't make it to the polling location.