None Of The Above.

[candycorn]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

No

for a multitude of reasons

Go on, name them then.

We have a term limit on Presidents.

Nothing to do with this topic. We need to keep the crazies from getting the to start with, not just be glad they are gone later.

so, if NOTA won in 2016... what would have happened.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

No

for a multitude of reasons

Like?

Term limits on Presidents, opens us up to anarchy, and many more.

Doesn't open us up to anarchy. Obviously we would need a system to carry on while new candidates are found and new elections run.

The Brits manage to do it in a few months, we could to.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

No

for a multitude of reasons

Go on, name them then.

We have a term limit on Presidents.

Nothing to do with this topic. We need to keep the crazies from getting the to start with, not just be glad they are gone later.

so, if NOTA won in 2016... what would have happened.

TBD. As previously noted, we would need a system in place to keep they government running for a few months.

 

[candycorn]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

No

for a multitude of reasons

Like?

Term limits on Presidents, opens us up to anarchy, and many more.

Doesn't open us up to anarchy. Obviously we would need a system to carry on while new candidates are found and new elections run.

The Brits manage to do it in a few months, we could to.

And if NOTA wins the new election?

 

[candycorn]

No

for a multitude of reasons

Go on, name them then.

We have a term limit on Presidents.

Nothing to do with this topic. We need to keep the crazies from getting the to start with, not just be glad they are gone later.

so, if NOTA won in 2016... what would have happened.

TBD. As previously noted, we would need a system in place to keep they government running for a few months.

such as...please be specific

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The most organic and effective way to do this would be for all of us to hold politicians, pundits, partisans and politicos accountable for their lies, deceit, bullshit, distortion and hypocrisy, even if they are in our party.

Ha ha. Just kidding.
.

Why would we do that Mac?

 

[Crepitus]

The expected media colonoscopy performed on political candidates - more so on the right than the left, of course, but still - pretty much guarantees that no candidates of the highest quality and intellect will present themselves for the procedure.

Citizens in this time vote "none of the above" by simply not voting.

That's not the same thing. A binding NOTA would give more people a voice, and if more people participated maybe we would get some real candidates.

 

[Mac1958]

The most organic and effective way to do this would be for all of us to hold politicians, pundits, partisans and politicos accountable for their lies, deceit, bullshit, distortion and hypocrisy, even if they are in our party.

Ha ha. Just kidding.
.

Why would we do that Mac?

I can't think of any reasons.
.

 

[toobfreak]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

We don't need it, we now have an impeachment option.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have stopped this crap before it started?

The funny thing is that Trump IS, in effect, a NOTA candidate! The people rejected all the usual suspects, good as they were, in the other SIXTEEN people the GOP offered, and the people overwhelmingly, at least in 30 states, chose him over Hillary------ the QUINTESSENTIAL Washington Insider Career Politician! Trump was as Seinfeld puts it: the EXACT OPPOSITE of every person who has ever run before! So if they were wrong, he would have to be right!

The problem is that he was SO right, that the losing party has spent their entire capital on blocking his administration and getting him removed from office by any and all means possible.

So -- -- -- you will NEVER have a candidate that everyone likes. There is no such thing as an electable "moderate" that lies in that safe neutral ground in the middle. The two parties are so far apart these days due to the continued radicalization of the Left farther and farther from the mainstream, that the more "right" a candidate is to some people, the more "wrong" he will be to the rest. Therefore, NOTA is nothing but a fantasy.

So tRump one the GOP vote by default?

And we don't need a candidate who appeals to everyone, just one that appeals to most.

Then that would be Trump.
He won the Electoral College by a landslide.
He took 30 states.
He won in something like 98-99% of all counties.
He won the popular vote in nearly all thirty states he won compared to Hillary's, indeed, the only state Hillary really crushed him in was California.
Take a few square miles of California out of the equation and he even likely wins the popular vote, and the argument can be made that if not for illegal and undocumented votes, he might have actually won that as well.

Trump was the non-politician political ousider everyone always said they wanted as an alternative to another poll-tested polished pressed suit. Except he just wasn't from the right party.

 

[candycorn]

The expected media colonoscopy performed on political candidates - more so on the right than the left, of course, but still - pretty much guarantees that no candidates of the highest quality and intellect will present themselves for the procedure.

Citizens in this time vote "none of the above" by simply not voting.

That's not the same thing. A binding NOTA would give more people a voice, and if more people participated maybe we would get some real candidates.

What you propose wouldn’t result in that. It would most likely mean someone who wasn’t preferred during the primaries would get the nomination.

 

[Crepitus]

Go on, name them then.

We have a term limit on Presidents.

Nothing to do with this topic. We need to keep the crazies from getting the to start with, not just be glad they are gone later.

so, if NOTA won in 2016... what would have happened.

TBD. As previously noted, we would need a system in place to keep they government running for a few months.

such as...please be specific

Hold the previous administration for 3 months, but with the stipulation that they are there only to respond to emergencies and no new legislation will be permitted or existing legislation advanced.


Speaker of the house acts as interim executive?

Maybe a new position, the transition executive?

Something could be worked out, I'm not talking about jumping into this without considering the consequences.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

No

for a multitude of reasons

Like?

Term limits on Presidents, opens us up to anarchy, and many more.

Doesn't open us up to anarchy. Obviously we would need a system to carry on while new candidates are found and new elections run.

The Brits manage to do it in a few months, we could to.

And if NOTA wins the new election?

Choose better candidates.

 

[Crepitus]

Why do we not have this on every election?

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

I think every election should have a binding "NOTA" option , and if NOTA wins the most votes all candidates are disqualified and disallowed from running for that office again.

All teams must select new captains and start over.

We don't need it, we now have an impeachment option.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have stopped this crap before it started?

The funny thing is that Trump IS, in effect, a NOTA candidate! The people rejected all the usual suspects, good as they were, in the other SIXTEEN people the GOP offered, and the people overwhelmingly, at least in 30 states, chose him over Hillary------ the QUINTESSENTIAL Washington Insider Career Politician! Trump was as Seinfeld puts it: the EXACT OPPOSITE of every person who has ever run before! So if they were wrong, he would have to be right!

The problem is that he was SO right, that the losing party has spent their entire capital on blocking his administration and getting him removed from office by any and all means possible.

So -- -- -- you will NEVER have a candidate that everyone likes. There is no such thing as an electable "moderate" that lies in that safe neutral ground in the middle. The two parties are so far apart these days due to the continued radicalization of the Left farther and farther from the mainstream, that the more "right" a candidate is to some people, the more "wrong" he will be to the rest. Therefore, NOTA is nothing but a fantasy.

So tRump one the GOP vote by default?

And we don't need a candidate who appeals to everyone, just one that appeals to most.

Then that would be Trump.
He won the Electoral College by a landslide.
He took 30 states.
He won in something like 98-99% of all counties.
He won the popular vote in nearly all thirty states he won compared to Hillary's, indeed, the only state Hillary really crushed him in was California.
Take a few square miles of California out of the equation and he even likely wins the popular vote, and the argument can be made that if not for illegal and undocumented votes, he might have actually won that as well.

Trump was the non-politician political ousider everyone always said they wanted as an alternative to another poll-tested polished pressed suit. Except he just wasn't from the right party.

We need someone who can do it without mortgaging himself to foreign interests.

 

[Crepitus]

The expected media colonoscopy performed on political candidates - more so on the right than the left, of course, but still - pretty much guarantees that no candidates of the highest quality and intellect will present themselves for the procedure.

Citizens in this time vote "none of the above" by simply not voting.

That's not the same thing. A binding NOTA would give more people a voice, and if more people participated maybe we would get some real candidates.

What you propose wouldn’t result in that. It would most likely mean someone who wasn’t preferred during the primaries would get the nomination.

Why?

 

[Terri4Trump]

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

Then don't vote asshole. That would suit me fine.

 

[Crepitus]

Why are we so often asked to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich?

Then don't vote asshole. That would suit me fine.

I didn't vote asshole, you did.

I voted NOTA.

 

[Desperado]

No, you think it sucks now? How do you think it would be after repeatedly having to do a re-election again and again because no one like the available choices.

 

[White 6]

I would like to see us to go a more parliamentary system like most other countries. Power is too concentrated and two parties no longer represent most of the country.

every country with a parliamentary system is far more fucked up than we are,,,

Sure would have been nice last time. There was nobody worth a crap still running on election day. Almost wonder if it was planned that way. I hate choosing between the lesser of two weevils.

 

[toobfreak]

We don't need it, we now have an impeachment option.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have stopped this crap before it started?

The funny thing is that Trump IS, in effect, a NOTA candidate! The people rejected all the usual suspects, good as they were, in the other SIXTEEN people the GOP offered, and the people overwhelmingly, at least in 30 states, chose him over Hillary------ the QUINTESSENTIAL Washington Insider Career Politician! Trump was as Seinfeld puts it: the EXACT OPPOSITE of every person who has ever run before! So if they were wrong, he would have to be right!

The problem is that he was SO right, that the losing party has spent their entire capital on blocking his administration and getting him removed from office by any and all means possible.

So -- -- -- you will NEVER have a candidate that everyone likes. There is no such thing as an electable "moderate" that lies in that safe neutral ground in the middle. The two parties are so far apart these days due to the continued radicalization of the Left farther and farther from the mainstream, that the more "right" a candidate is to some people, the more "wrong" he will be to the rest. Therefore, NOTA is nothing but a fantasy.

So tRump one the GOP vote by default?

And we don't need a candidate who appeals to everyone, just one that appeals to most.

Then that would be Trump.
He won the Electoral College by a landslide.
He took 30 states.
He won in something like 98-99% of all counties.
He won the popular vote in nearly all thirty states he won compared to Hillary's, indeed, the only state Hillary really crushed him in was California.
Take a few square miles of California out of the equation and he even likely wins the popular vote, and the argument can be made that if not for illegal and undocumented votes, he might have actually won that as well.

Trump was the non-politician political ousider everyone always said they wanted as an alternative to another poll-tested polished pressed suit. Except he just wasn't from the right party.

We need someone who can do it without mortgaging himself to foreign interests.

Funny that all we hear are the necessity and benefits of globalization, yet when a globalized candidate comes along, we hear calls for nationalization instead? The truth we are finding out is that ALL of the options, all of your candidates, senators, and many representatives are ALL mortgaged in "foreign interests," that is why they are always flying around the world meeting up with various heads of state while in office, and long after, when they become lobbyists for foreign interests.

Trump has been the ONLY president to effectively BAN anyone on his cabinet becoming a lobbyist for a foreign country for five years after leaving office.

 

[Crepitus]

No, you think it sucks now? How do you think it would be after repeatedly having to do a re-election again and again because no one like the available choices.

Why settle for candidates no one likes?