tbburg
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Scottsdale AZ
Just a thought.
Part of the problem with "Vote the bums out!" is that to vote the bum out, you have to vote for another bum. While republicans may find their current(republican) representative reprehensible, they're not going to vote for a democrat. Likewise, democrats who don't like the current incumbent also wouldn't vote them out if it meant getting a republican replacement.
What about this: a binding vote of no confidence. A hard and fast "None of the above" with legal teeth.
Here's how I envision it. Every ballot has the candidate "none of the above" printed as a choice. If "none of the above" gets more the 50% of the vote (not just the most votes, a majority. Lets make the barrier higher, it'll be a 3-way race after all) a new election is held, and nobody named on the prior ballot is allowed to run for that seat again during that term. Their constituents, after all, majority voted no to their candidacy.
Some of the benefits I see with this system:
It gives a constituency the ability to remove the reprehensible bastard without necessarily having to vote for a different reprehensible bastard. If you live in a majority democrat district, you caould get rid of the incumbent without electing a republican.
It would cut down on the mud slinging and clean up campains. Rather then giving people a reason to vote against their opponent, candidates would have to concentrate on getting them to vote FOR themselves, because every person you convince to vote "against" your opponent would now likely be a vote for none of the above, making it more likely none of the named candidates would win the seat at all.
Voter turnout might go up. How many people who don't vote would possibly start voting again?
Part of the problem with "Vote the bums out!" is that to vote the bum out, you have to vote for another bum. While republicans may find their current(republican) representative reprehensible, they're not going to vote for a democrat. Likewise, democrats who don't like the current incumbent also wouldn't vote them out if it meant getting a republican replacement.
What about this: a binding vote of no confidence. A hard and fast "None of the above" with legal teeth.
Here's how I envision it. Every ballot has the candidate "none of the above" printed as a choice. If "none of the above" gets more the 50% of the vote (not just the most votes, a majority. Lets make the barrier higher, it'll be a 3-way race after all) a new election is held, and nobody named on the prior ballot is allowed to run for that seat again during that term. Their constituents, after all, majority voted no to their candidacy.
Some of the benefits I see with this system:
It gives a constituency the ability to remove the reprehensible bastard without necessarily having to vote for a different reprehensible bastard. If you live in a majority democrat district, you caould get rid of the incumbent without electing a republican.
It would cut down on the mud slinging and clean up campains. Rather then giving people a reason to vote against their opponent, candidates would have to concentrate on getting them to vote FOR themselves, because every person you convince to vote "against" your opponent would now likely be a vote for none of the above, making it more likely none of the named candidates would win the seat at all.
Voter turnout might go up. How many people who don't vote would possibly start voting again?
