would'nt this then show the confidence level of the people for the candates running .....
2007-01-25 10:02:57 · 12 answers · asked by reality check 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
It wouldn't work. No one would ever get elected. :)
2007-01-25 10:10:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think "none of the above" merely shows ignorance for the candidates. In nearly every major election, there are dozens of third party candidates. If you know where you fit on that spectrum, you can vote for them (or write in their names). "None of the above" just means that you haven't researched enough to figure out which candidate you like. And face it, in representative democracy, you're not going to like one candidate 100% (unless you yourself are running, and even then you may not personally believe all of the positions that you take in the campaign). So your responsibility as a citizen is to decide which person will take you in the best direction--not the perfect one.
And you can't complain about the candidates that are out there without doing something about it.
First -- get active in a party to get the person that you like nominated. Second, campaign for them (either publicly or just with your neighbor.)
In addition, remember the time, money, energy, and intense scrutiny that elections place on people. You're under a microscope; your family is under a microscope; you are constantly asking for money; you're criticized for everything you say; you have to try to build coalitions. Who wants to go through that??? "The Best" candidates will never run, because (a) they did something bad once (like "inhale" or sleep with someone "unclean" or worse) or (b) they cannot put up with the intense scrutiny.
You think you can find someone better? Then get involved!
If you feel that "all politicians are scum," then just become an anarchist or don't vote. That's your right, too.
2007-01-25 18:14:07 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because somebody has to run. If you don't like the ones run yourself or write in whom you think would be a better choice. As for iniatives. Sometimes it is best to say none of the above.
2007-01-25 18:18:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely! But we also need laws stipulating that new elections must be held immediately and forbidding any of the original candidates from running again. We might have a few years of turmoil, but the results would justify this.
2007-01-25 18:12:28 · answer #4 · answered by Nightstalker1967 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps it would be useful to the candidates. It would clear up any confusion a candidate might have of whether a voter accidentally missed a section that was left blank or if the voter INTENTIONALLY did not vote for any of the candidates.
2007-01-25 19:46:31 · answer #5 · answered by the bag lady 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! ,to many voters pick what they consider the lesser of two evils when there is no 3rd. choice.At least it would show a vote of no confidence and also keep the losing candidates from claiming voter fraud.
2007-01-25 20:14:27 · answer #6 · answered by Streakin' Deacon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES !! ABSOLUTELY !! AFFIRMATIVE !! I've said for a long time that the definition of stupidity is doing the sane thing over and over again and expecting different results. Like keep re-electing those incompetent morons now in office, ALL OF THEM!
2007-01-25 18:10:16 · answer #7 · answered by Brite Tiger 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I should change my name to none of the above and maybe get elected to Congress or at least Senate.
2007-01-25 18:09:45 · answer #8 · answered by Sue Chef 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"none of the above" would be equivalent to not voting, at least write in yourself
2007-01-25 18:09:12 · answer #9 · answered by SJohnson 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can write in anything you want. It's your vote to use or waste.
2007-01-25 18:09:43 · answer #10 · answered by Bad Samaritan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋