English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

My Idea:
American’s currently only have the right to vote for a person that various rich political groups have placed on a ballet. These candidates generally represent the ideology of the people of their political association, not necessarily mine. Over the decades it has been fairly common that the American public is forced to choose between voting for a candidate that we don’t fully agree with (The lesser of evils) or not voting and losing any say in how our government is run.

To fix the problem of voter dissatisfaction in the voting process then the voters need an honest and direct option to vote against candidates that they believe are the worst option. When I cast my vote against a candidate I want the option to directly NEGATIVELY impact a candidate’s totals, not to just support another candidate that I don’t fully believe in.

The rule is One Person = One Vote. Why can’t my vote be one of a Negative? A negative vote would allow me to honestly express my desires.

2007-05-15 09:22:19 · 5 answers · asked by Dmetri 1 in Politics & Government Elections

5 answers

The current "system" is designed to be confusing and unfair. Personally...I'm for internet voting. If we can do 99.9% of our banking, taxes, dating, etc..online with relative security...why can't we vote? It would be accessable to everyone...we could use SS numbers for ID...or voter registration #'s....have an independant watchdog organization oversee the process and be sure to have a paper trail...just imagine how easy and simple it could be....not to mention...how many more people would actually vote if they could do it online.

I'm sure the idea of that makes politicians uneasy.....lol

2007-05-15 09:31:09 · answer #1 · answered by lattle4 3 · 0 0

Have you ever heard of the National Initiative for Democracy?

Its a legislative package sponsored by the Democracy Foundation.

Basically, it would empower the people as lawmakers, so that you and I would be able to vote directly on laws at the federal level. This is already done in 24 states and over 200 communites across the country. Its pretty simple.

You can read up on it on the internet. In particular at the campaign website of my candidate for President, former Senator Mike Gravel.

www.Gravel2008.us

2007-05-15 13:27:21 · answer #2 · answered by Jesus W. 6 · 0 0

It seems many of the candidates are independently rich. It makes me wonder who exactly they will relate to. Like Pelosi and Bush they side with the money angle.
Also with the media owned by a few we will get a biased report on the outcomes of debates etc.
So to do background checks on all candidates use that info is one way to at least feel good about one's own vote.

2007-05-15 09:41:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think the voting turnout can be improved if we hold elections on Sundays. With your system, one candidate could end up with a negative number of votes. That would not make any sense. Negative numbers are imaginary.

2007-05-15 09:28:37 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1 0

This will never happen, but only people with a H.S education or equivalent should vote.

2007-05-15 09:33:01 · answer #5 · answered by Brooklyn Guy 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers