If we could vote "no", would this change elections?

Question

Voting "NO" would be registered, as a protest against the candidates. If no candidate achieved majority, a new election would be schedule to take place in thirty days. Any new candidate would be allowed, allowing simplified elegibily rules. The next election would be decided by who ever go the most votes.

I asked this of my local represenative. He said, "None of the current politicians would get electied". If the US system truely represents people. Allowing the "NO" vote would have zero effect.

How confident are you? Woudl this increase voting turn out? Change negative political commercials? Create stronger candidates or make them weaker?

Or does this show a representative government is a faliure?... no one can get electied.

Answer 1

Yes. But the key to the future is "proportional representation." Look for it online. Instead of majority rule taking all, voters are guaranteed representation proportional to the membership of their party, similar to representation by state or district.

Voter turnout increases when people's votes count toward representation no matter how big or small.

I believe in adding representation based on party affiliation. So there could be a Senate with two reps per group, and a House based on reps per population or membership. Since some people may be affiliated with more than one, any group or individual could propose legislation, but decisions would be based on consensus between all parties affected. So you can legislate for your own party or district; but if legislation affects the greater public, it must be adopted by consent of those affected.

This would encourage direct participation and representation in government, and help to organize the population by party and by issue. Policies based on common solutions would invite practical ideas and cooperative support, instead of campaigns that exploit emotions or media stereotypes to manipulate the vote, divide the public, and fuel conflict and debate over problems.

The government is not a failure but the population has outgrown the current system. As a society we have developed the technology and communication to localize government and to organize by interest so that groups no longer need to compete for power. Solutions will come from cooperation between groups. So that is where government is heading, based on expanding on the current model we have for checks and balances between the various branches and levels.

Answer 2

A number of years ago, an article in Reader's Digest advocated a "None of the Above" option on ballots. That way, the author theorized, if no candidates were palatable, we could throw them all out and get a new bunch.

It probably would increase the cost of elections slightly. I think it would create a stir at first, but subsequently it might have some positive effects--dilute negative campaigning, for example. (There has been some serious mud which has been slung lately in our local elections; and for one office I can't honestly vote for either candidate--not because of what has been said about either of them but because of what each has said about the other. Who wants a mudslinger in office?)

I think after some initial confusion (maybe an election or two), it would create a more positive campaign environment if each candidate knew that the voters didn't have to pick one or another of them but could throw the whole bunch out and start over. Hopefully, it would create an environment where each candidate would state his or her positive attributes rather than his or her opponent's negative attributes.