Ballot Idea
TheWizard
Join Date: 2002-12-11 Member: 10553Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-12-11 Member: 10553Members, Constellation
in Discussions
This idea has been bouncing around in my head for a while now. Let me give you a bit of background.
I tend to get a little angry in the voting booth when I see the little spot that says 'punch here to vote straight Republican/Democrat' It bothers me a bit that people could care so little on the issues (especially local ones) to just throw their vote to a single party and leave it at that.
What I would like to see is this:
You walk into the voting booth and see the standard voting options. It lists the positions that are up for re-election. And that is it. A blank ballot.
If you want to vote for a candidate you have to be able to write their name down by hand. If you do not know the name of the person you want elected to that position, then you obviously do not know or care enough about the position, candidates, or issues and probably should not be voting in that race to begin with. Blank ballots would force people to put some thought into the people they are voting for.
That is just a brief description of what I would like to see. What do you guys think?
I tend to get a little angry in the voting booth when I see the little spot that says 'punch here to vote straight Republican/Democrat' It bothers me a bit that people could care so little on the issues (especially local ones) to just throw their vote to a single party and leave it at that.
What I would like to see is this:
You walk into the voting booth and see the standard voting options. It lists the positions that are up for re-election. And that is it. A blank ballot.
If you want to vote for a candidate you have to be able to write their name down by hand. If you do not know the name of the person you want elected to that position, then you obviously do not know or care enough about the position, candidates, or issues and probably should not be voting in that race to begin with. Blank ballots would force people to put some thought into the people they are voting for.
That is just a brief description of what I would like to see. What do you guys think?
Comments
On the other hand, this system will really only result in the guy who has had his name thrown in the voter's face the most winning the election, because that's the only name the voters are likely to remember for small positions.
There has to be something better than a memory test or a cheap program ripped from a dating service.
You will just make the counting of votes more difficult. If you remove the party lever, than there will just be people standing out front handing out lists of republicans and democrats. Plus with your method you interduce the human element, all kind of problems would arise from this.
Of course, that's not much worse than the current situation, where winning has a lot to do with being the first name in the list and not causing any scandals (that people remember enough to not vote for you).
dysgraphia
dyslexia
bad memory
timeconsuming
more room for error then with friken hanging chads
Similar names
hard to spell names
wierd variations on common names
I could go on, but I am lazy <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It is one person one vote, no matter how frikken stupid you are, you still get to have your vote for the person you want.
Alot of the scandel of Florida was that the stupid punch crads were suposedly hard to understand.
go look at the scores for this game:
<a href='http://www.evolutionarily.org/games/gorgehunt/' target='_blank'>http://www.evolutionarily.org/games/gorgehunt/</a>
and then we know why I am against that <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
this is a dumb idea, democracy is where people vote if they want to (and can) and if the average voters a moron then oh well, educate the masses don't do something stupid like that
What I would really like to see is a 3rd party when the election. America would no longer be a bipartisan system. Any party could have the possibility, because the 3rd party would hopefully open the window for that.
Anyways, I have to disagree with your idea, mostly for the reasons mentioned above. Now what would be cool is if you had to pass a test where you describe your candidate's position on a wide range of issues in order to register, and if they don't match 60% or better you have to take the test again at a later date. That way, when it comes time to vote, you should have a pretty good idea of who you're voting into office. Of course, the number of people who vote would be a record low, but so what? If they didn't care enough to find out what tehir candidate stood for then their vote was meaningless anyway.
Oh, and on internet voting, bad idea. There are far too many ways to break any system that doesn't leave a paper trail.
My girlfriend is a Libertarian; she's voting libertarian this year, for precisely the reason you cite - the two main party candidates are similar enough as to make no difference to her, and neither's platform matches her beliefs sufficiently. Is she throwing her vote away? Maybe. Some liberals say that Libertarians are more likely to actually vote for the Lib. candidate this time around because Bush's fiscal policy is so far removed from a classical "conservative" stance (the word she used to describe it was "irresponsible").
Here's what I'd love to see, while we're talking about voting reform: Instant Runoff Voting. With electronic voting, we have the ability to do IRV, and it could do amazing things to break the stranglehold that the two leading parties have on the political process. Here's a breakdown:
1) All candidates' names appear on the ballot.
2) Rather than choose one, you *rank* each candidate. Let's say I was a tree-hugging hippy. I would vote Nader first, then Kerry second.
3) My vote is counted for Nader.
4) In the event that Nader does *not* win, my vote is not thrown away. Instead, it is *recounted* for Kerry.
2b) I don't have to rank every candidate. Let's say my girlfriend goes to vote, and the choices are Badnarik (Lib.), Kerry (D), and Bush ®. She puts down a 1 for Badnarik, but doesn't put anything next to the other two names because she likes neither one. Her vote is counted for Badnarik even if he loses.
What's different? This scenario removes all the risk from voting for a 3rd-party candidate. There is no longer such thing as a "throw-away" vote, or "helping the other side." A vote for Nader is no longer a vote for Bush. ^^ Without the fear of wasting my vote, I'm free to vote for the candidate I think most capable, without having to worry that the one I agree with least will end up winning because I didn't vote mainstream.
Why is it possible? Electronic voting gives us the horsepower needed to dynamically recount votes without losing track or worrying about human error.
What about the paper trail? I actually thought about this in the car today, talking with my girlfriend. My thought is that the machine has two rolls of "ticker tape" (the kind you get receipts printed on from a credit card purchase, ATM withdrawal, etc). The first roll spits out a receipt for you, the voter. The second is entirely internal, and serves as a print record of the votes recorded on that machine. There could even be a little window, through which you could see the 2nd roll of tape to assure you that yes, your vote was correctly recorded.
In the event of a problem, recounting would be easy either by computer or by hand.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter.
well, the second half.
I like coil's idea.
It alowes for a possible break into the 2 party system, it makes it so I can vote and not have it eqal to not voting.
to bad it will never happen <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Call it a protest, or a boycott if you want, I feel that voting under the current system is a waste of my time and I won't bother voting until that changes (which will probably be never).
Coil's idea is one I have heard before and I support it.
My idea was mainly to illustrate that people should KNOW who they want to vote for before they get to the polling place.
This may be an undemocratic statement, but until I see some thought put into how some people choose their candidates, I am not going to do anything to make it easier for them to get out and vote.
I think people get what they deserve if they do not vote. Voting is as easy as it ever has been. Only several decades ago people had to travel for 10+ miles and voter turnout percentages were higher. I do not want to reward people for apathy.
Call it a protest, or a boycott if you want, I feel that voting under the current system is a waste of my time and I won't bother voting until that changes (which will probably be never). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a protest if nobody notices.
You will not change things by sitting on your butt and doing nothing. If you aren't going to vote, do something else at least.
The government noticed last time voter turnout was really low, why wouldn't they notice if it happened again?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You will not change things by sitting on your butt and doing nothing. If you aren't going to vote, do something else at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am. I am spreading the message of non-voting whenever the situation presents it self, like whenever someone asks me what I think of the candidates, or when those damned annoying little bastards outside of the grocery store and walmart try to get me to register to vote. I am specifically targetting liberals too, if the democrats support dropped out from under them because no one was voting they might decide to run on a platform of changing the voting system, so it would work out in the long run (assuming the conservatives don't start a nuclear war, burn the constitution, or make it legal to hunt the homeless in the meantime). I don't expect any of this to work of course, its a silly fantasy, just like the dream of seeing a thrid part take office.
Think of it this way... your opponents in this battle are those who think voting is ok. The only real means you have to fix it is the system itself... but you're choosing to ignore the system. Your opponents, however, are making full use of that system - they like to vote, and they do. And they elect people who think the system works, and who won't work to change it.
Why not VOTE, and vote for someone who wants to fix the system? 3rd-party voting is growing every election; clearly something is wrong with the two-party approach. IMO, 3rd-party voting is much more effective than simply not voting if you want to send a message to the two big groups.
You've missed the point, if enough LIBERALS stop voting, while CONSERVATIVES still vote, the democratic party might realize that something is wrong and endevor to get people to vote for them again. And when they do their studies and find that most LIBERALS aren't voting because they think something is horribly wrong with the system, well, they just might run on a platform of voting reform.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not VOTE, and vote for someone who wants to fix the system?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because they won't win anyway and so its really not worth my time to bother.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3rd-party voting is growing every election<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, last time around a third party got enough liberal votes to give the office to a conservative. And because of that many liberals are afraid to vote for a third party because that same conservative (whom many of us dislike in a manner that can be discribed as 'extreem') could win again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->clearly something is wrong with the two-party approach<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On this we agree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IMO, 3rd-party voting is much more effective than simply not voting if you want to send a message to the two big groups.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And on this we do not.
I just found this to be amusing considering we were talking about voting. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->