Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
)
That is why I am going to change my name to none of the above and you will be hearing on the news "President Above signed...."I also believe every ballot for elected office should have a None of the Above option.
If None of the Above wins, all the candidates on the ballot are trashed and not allowed to run again. Then we hold a new election.
Somebody give this boy a cookie.Forming a republic didn't protect the 'negroes' in America.They were afraid of acting stupidly because they formed a republic? Does. Not. Compute.Implying it had anything to do with this:How did I misuse the term republic?
So now it's you implying the founders were not afraid of acting stupidly.the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.
And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Rather than pissing into the wind, back up your statement. Show us where they say we aren't a republic. This should be good!Wrong. Ballot measures isn't how we run the national government. We wouldn't need representatives if you were right. LOL.It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.
Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.
Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.
But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.
And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.
People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.
so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.
The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.
you are wrong...see the Supreme Court case I referenced
Wrong. Ballot measures isn't how we run the national government. We wouldn't need representatives if you were right. LOL.It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.
Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.
Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.
But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.
And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.
People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.
so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.
The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.
A republic. Like I said.And what system protects the lamb?I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.
Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary
- a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
- a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
- a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president
Move to Europe. Problem solved!I originally didn't like the idea. But the more I looked into it, the more sense it made. It doesn't really have a significant downside. And it makes elected officials more representative of the actual electorate.
Or....we could just use the system here and enjoy its benefits: a more representative government.
Fuck dude. Go find a grownup to explain what words mean.Show us where it's determined that a republic cannot be a democracy.Rather than pissing into the wind, back up your statement. Show us where they say we aren't a republic. This should be good!Wrong. Ballot measures isn't how we run the national government. We wouldn't need representatives if you were right. LOL.It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.
People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.
so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.
The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.
you are wrong...see the Supreme Court case I referenced
I came up with this idea about 12 years agoI would like to see a change in voting.
I think if you could vote against someone, more people would go.
example; Trump vs Hillary vs 3rd party
Trump is a gasbag that's more into himself than anything else and I won't vote for him.
Hillary is an evil twunt with no place among the living, so I wouldn't vote for her.
3rd party is some milktoast libertarian
so now I have little reason to take my time and vote, but if I could vote against Hillary, I would take the time to do so. This gives a 3rd party a better shot as who is going to be interested in voting against them.
That would be interesting.
If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.
If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.
Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.
But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.
you do understand that that would mean months of listening to more political adds?I also believe every ballot for elected office should have a None of the Above option.
If None of the Above wins, all the candidates on the ballot are trashed and not allowed to run again. Then we hold a new election.
lemme see if I get this;I would like to see a change in voting.
I think if you could vote against someone, more people would go.
example; Trump vs Hillary vs 3rd party
Trump is a gasbag that's more into himself than anything else and I won't vote for him.
Hillary is an evil twunt with no place among the living, so I wouldn't vote for her.
3rd party is some milktoast libertarian
so now I have little reason to take my time and vote, but if I could vote against Hillary, I would take the time to do so. This gives a 3rd party a better shot as who is going to be interested in voting against them.
That would be interesting.
If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.
If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.
Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.
But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.
g5000,
Your almost there... You are really talking about Single Transfer Voting(Alternative Voting).
In a one seat race,
1. Vote as per your preference,
2. Count votes
3. Eliminate last place
4. If your candidate gets eliminated, your vote goes to your next preference.
5. Keep doing 3 & 4 until you get two candidates OR someone gets over half the votes.
6. So all votes(assuming everyone uses all their preferences) will be used for either for the 1st or 2nd place.
Here is Example from Ireland:
View attachment 57005
For expediency and mathematically, if a candidate can't win transfer of next preference he is eliminated. So that is why a few can be eliminated in one count.
This is much in the spirit of what you wanted, I think.
I would like to see a change in voting.
I think if you could vote against someone, more people would go.
example; Trump vs Hillary vs 3rd party
Trump is a gasbag that's more into himself than anything else and I won't vote for him.
Hillary is an evil twunt with no place among the living, so I wouldn't vote for her.
3rd party is some milktoast libertarian
so now I have little reason to take my time and vote, but if I could vote against Hillary, I would take the time to do so. This gives a 3rd party a better shot as who is going to be interested in voting against them.
That would be interesting.
If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.
If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.
Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.
But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.
It is an intriguing idea.....and might cut down on negative advertising....cause you might not be helping yourself just hurting the other guy.
Rather than pissing into the wind, back up your statement. Show us where they say we aren't a republic. This should be good!Wrong. Ballot measures isn't how we run the national government. We wouldn't need representatives if you were right. LOL.It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.
Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.
Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.
But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.
And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.
People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.
so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.
The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.
you are wrong...see the Supreme Court case I referenced
I would like to see a change in voting.
I think if you could vote against someone, more people would go.
example; Trump vs Hillary vs 3rd party
Trump is a gasbag that's more into himself than anything else and I won't vote for him.
Hillary is an evil twunt with no place among the living, so I wouldn't vote for her.
3rd party is some milktoast libertarian
so now I have little reason to take my time and vote, but if I could vote against Hillary, I would take the time to do so. This gives a 3rd party a better shot as who is going to be interested in voting against them.
That would be interesting.
If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.
If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.
Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.
But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.
It is an intriguing idea.....and might cut down on negative advertising....cause you might not be helping yourself just hurting the other guy.
but neg ads could get more people to vote against another person.
imagine, knowing you are going to be in 3rd, you can get people riled up enough that instead of voting for their guy, they vote against the other guy, your people vote for you and your the winner.
The word republic is specific, even Germany is a republic.Rather than pissing into the wind, back up your statement. Show us where they say we aren't a republic. This should be good!Wrong. Ballot measures isn't how we run the national government. We wouldn't need representatives if you were right. LOL.It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.
People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.
so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.
The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.
you are wrong...see the Supreme Court case I referenced
they didnt say it wasnt a republic, and I dont say it isnt a republic.....just the the word republic doesnt mean it isnt a democracy
The word republic is specific, even Germany is a republic.Rather than pissing into the wind, back up your statement. Show us where they say we aren't a republic. This should be good!Wrong. Ballot measures isn't how we run the national government. We wouldn't need representatives if you were right. LOL.so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.
The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.
you are wrong...see the Supreme Court case I referenced
they didnt say it wasnt a republic, and I dont say it isnt a republic.....just the the word republic doesnt mean it isnt a democracy
Federal Republic of Germany is established - May 23, 1949 - HISTORY.com
1949
Federal Republic of Germany is established
"Those who vote, decide nothing.
"Those who count the votes, decide everything."
-Josef Stalin
Actually yes. The two main parties remain the two main parties. Usually the have to form a coalition to govern.Actually not.
I know. But that is your contention. It sort of fits the coherency of your other contentions.They were afraid of acting stupidly because they formed a republic? Does. Not. Compute
