the choices on the ballot?
2007-08-04 01:03:48 · 8 answers · asked by Greywolf 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
'Cause "NOTA" would get elected. :)
2007-08-05 21:39:24 · answer #1 · answered by Eyes 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The simple answer is that by admitting that none of the choices are who the majority of voters want, the government would have to pay out more money for another election, or continuation of that election. But we should have our say, with all candidates on the ballot, (third parties need to be added to all ballots)
2007-08-04 12:41:46 · answer #2 · answered by Greg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the electoral college structure doesn't allow that.
You can only vote for a candidate -- you cannot instruct electors not to vote at all.
The solution is to fix the electoral college system so it is not "all or nothing" by state, and instead make it proportional by state -- that allows a reasonable chance for someone other than the two dominant parties to win -- which is why they'd never allow it.
2007-08-04 10:14:15 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good point. However if Ron Paul gets on we won't need a "none of the above". ...and that will be a first in a long long time!
2007-08-05 03:06:15 · answer #4 · answered by Bloatedtoad 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm might work on the primaries but chaos in the November. Bush would have to stay til an other year of political ads and propaganda nonsense continue. Jeshhh
2007-08-04 08:59:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
as in miami dade liberals would complain that people "didnt understand it" and demand a do over. unfortunately this has society has turned posture of victims and god help us if we trample on someones rights even unintentionally. nice plan but a tough sell past the pelosi/reid regime.
2007-08-04 08:12:34 · answer #6 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Blast from the past~Ringo for President~
2007-08-04 09:52:07 · answer #7 · answered by Classic96 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would like this option
2007-08-04 08:42:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋