Ok you all know the problem with voting: If 30% vote for A, 20% for B, and 20% for C, 20% for D, and 10% for E then A wins..even though 70% didn't vote for A...
So here's what I suppose... When voting you have one YES vote and one NO vote. That way you can vote for whomever you wish, at the same time voicing what you would like to avoid as your worst fear. I believe it would end the debacle about all of this crap. Let's institute it. What do you all think?
2006-07-18 18:33:06 · 9 answers · asked by mickeycushman 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Ok, some of you are having a hard time wrapping your minds around this...so I will attempt to clarify:
The idea of one white marble one black marble would be a compromise, something possible. The idea that 70% vote other than A leaves the margin as an inert result of the process. Being able to say Yes to B and No to A would reduce this margin so that a clearer 'message' could be received from voters. Because if enough people who didn't vote for A also voted against A then the 30% would become indecisive and would then be pitted fairly against the rest of the candidates...does this help?
2006-07-18 20:37:18 · update #1
But that also means that 80 percent didn't vote for b, c, d and 90 % didn't vote for E. So technically A is the majority. Of course I see what you mean, and it is an iteresting idea.
2006-07-18 21:23:25 · answer #1 · answered by cat_Rett_98 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The problem remains the same with this idea or you are not been able to clarify this in detail. The voting peoblem will only end if we have TWO party system. There should be only TWO political parties contesting for the seat. That will give a better view to the voters and help to choose one out of two.
2006-07-19 03:24:55 · answer #2 · answered by Ss 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean you want someone to have an absolute majority instead of a plurality in order to win an election?
Most people do that through a run-off election: the top two vote-getters square off in an election, so that eventually one candidate gets a majority.
I'm not sure how giving people a "no" vote would solve the plurality problem? It still wouldn't ensure that any one candidate came out with an absolute majority in order to win...
2006-07-19 01:41:02 · answer #3 · answered by JoeSchmoe06 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't understand how it will help. Even then, 30% can say yes for A, 20% for B and so on, so that at the end of the day, A will again be the winner. Please clarify the voting process.
2006-07-19 01:39:32 · answer #4 · answered by abhishek 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good idea, but I think we should have negative voting. Vote for the person you LEAST want in office, and the person with the fewest votes wins.
2006-07-19 01:42:37 · answer #5 · answered by correrafan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The mind is like a mirror it reflects what it sees
2006-07-19 01:49:34 · answer #6 · answered by tough as hell 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What voting are you talking about ?
2006-07-19 01:37:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ummm....no
look up popular vote
2006-07-19 01:37:22 · answer #8 · answered by prettylittlepowderkeg 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well... I think you should change your avatar first
2006-07-19 01:37:00 · answer #9 · answered by barbaradjt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋