would we be better served as a nation if we went back to ballots that had president and a blank line under it,

Question

so you would have to know who you wanted to vote for instead of just marking the name with a R or a D after it .

we still use it when it comes to write in canidates, its not allowed in arizona to have a list of write in canidates any where around the polling station

wouldnt it be better to have a president that had say 12 percent of people who know him or her and there stances instead of 51% who voted for someone they knew nothing about

open4one: the blank line , know who is running. helps weed out the bad politicians and brings in better ones

none of the above does nothing

Tmess2 the parties still do that in the form of party aproval booklets they come in the mail a couple of weeks before the elections party control is part of the problem we are having in the us. and as for trying to get people in by mistake. that is no where close to the reason this would be better. its a way of making people understand who they are voting for. you will know your canidate enough that you can remember his/her name, by knowing what they stand for. i find it depressing that when pollsters ask people who the R&D canadates are on electoin day, and they say they dont know but they still vote for a R or a D. its voting by rote. its been beat into them about parties and not canidates.

Answer 1

First, I think we'd be better off having paper ballots, period. Not because I believe elections have been stolen or in any Diebold conspiracies. It would be nice to have the audit trail to satisfy those complaining the votes were rigged.

Secondly, I'm OK with the party system, and if you want to write someone in, that should be OK too.

Answer 2

If you are going back to the traditional rules, then no. While the traditional rules had a blank line, they also allowed people to hand out a full list of a party's candidates to the voters as they entered the polling place. For the most part, changes to the system have made it easier and less chaotic for people to vote.

If you are keeping the laws against electioneering and going back to blank lines, that is an entirely different system than we had before. Furthermore, the party identification does give useful information to voters. If that is enough for a voter to make up their minds (and if the parties had better control over nominations, it would be), then there is no reason to try to hide that fact other than to get someone elected by mistake.

Answer 3

I doubt that will ever be viable...however, I do wish they would quit showing these stupid infomercials and passing them off as debates. I want tough questions directed at these people and I want to see arguments fleshed out in defense of their positions. All we ever get is sound-bite answers to questions that have no doubt been perused by the candidates in advance. It's all B.S. and it does not give us any idea what these people stand for...or whether or not they can express a cogent thought about something they haven't rehearsed a million times.

Answer 4

Yah I was actually thinking about this the other day. Was also thinking about our selection process and why we have to narrow it down to two people like we do, and then vote for them. Why can't we just vote for a handful of candidates instead of all this narrowing down to 2, which leaves out a majority of the base of the population.

Answer 5

Sounds simple. It will save money on printing. Vote counting may be difficult if written material is illegible.

Answer 6

I think we'd be better off if the ballot had a line for "none of the above".

Answer 7

No. But honestly i wonder if having a huge, uninformed turnout is such a great thing.

Answer 8

Yeah, try to get that one past the DNC and NAACP. They will cry it discriminates against those who cannot read, write or spell. And it probably would, too.

Answer 9

I agree I think the most important line we need to have on any
ballot is "none of the above".

Answer 10

UH, no.