Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: broadstbull who wrote (117028)	10/16/2003 11:03:28 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

So You Don't Like The " None Of The Above " Format?<GGG> These folks have been advocating this for some time : L8TR nota.org Why are Voter Consent Ballot Options, such as a permanent, binding "None of the Above" on the ballot, a good idea? All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; "None of the Above" gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a "No" vote on a ballot question. Would end the "must hire" elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar "lesser evil." A candidate must obtain voter consent to be elected, even if running unopposed. Voters would decide the fate of the political parties' choices, instead of the parties deciding the voters' choices. It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy. Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote. The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote. Establishes flexible, voter controlled term limits of one term for every office, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended. Campaign contributors who give to all candidates to insure "access" would no longer be sure they backed the winner; in general, buying elections should become a more uncertain enterprise. Improves checks and balances between voters and political parties, especially needed in jurisdictions with one dominant political party or nearly identical alternatives. Political parties would nominate candidates knowing those candidates must be a better choice for voters than "None of the Above." Follow-up by-elections are far less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office. Office holders, knowing they face "None of the Above" in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate. When pre-election polls include "None of the Above", the feedback from voters should help guide candidates and parties. Even when "None of the Above" does not win or is a non-binding NOTA, the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner's mandate. Provides a permanent option for voters to withhold consent that is independent of expensive and infrequent candidate based "reform" movements. Should make public service more attractive by improving the quality of those elected to office. Opportunities for election fraud should be reduced because fewer blank votes for an office would be cast. Applies to all candidates and parties equally. It is a relatively simple, fair, sensible, accomplishable and permanent improvement to our current system, hopefully making for a more democratic and ultimately stronger America