None Of The Above.

[Billy_Kinetta]

Incorrect. Delegates pick who is their party nominee.

you never answered what happens if you have 2 or 3 consecutive elections with NOTA being the winner.

Sure I did. I said "pick better candidates".

The best candidate already got their part’s plurality of votes. They were disqualified by the NOTA option.

are you actually thinking that the hard right and hard left will support a compromise candidate?

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

"So you wanna play rough? Hokay!"

Not sure where you're going with that.....

Whenever I hear the phrase "force them" from Democrats, it makes me laugh.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why not? People can express their no confidence. The sentiment is growing rapidly.

If you want to fix our election system....don't allow Democrats to be in charge of any part of it.
They shouldn't be allowed to count votes or decide election laws.
Democrats cheat.

 

[Crepitus]

Sure I did. I said "pick better candidates".

The best candidate already got their part’s plurality of votes. They were disqualified by the NOTA option.

are you actually thinking that the hard right and hard left will support a compromise candidate?

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

"So you wanna play rough? Hokay!"

Not sure where you're going with that.....

Whenever I hear the phrase "force them" from Democrats, it makes me laugh.

I'm talking about making the two big parties out up more palatable candidates.

Are you against that?

 

[harmonica]

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.

..he shouldn't be able to vote if he's too stupid to not figure that out

 

[harmonica]

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.

like Billy K said--don't vote--how hard can it be to figure that out????!!!!!????

 

[Mac1958]

The best candidate already got their part’s plurality of votes. They were disqualified by the NOTA option.

are you actually thinking that the hard right and hard left will support a compromise candidate?

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

"So you wanna play rough? Hokay!"

Not sure where you're going with that.....

Whenever I hear the phrase "force them" from Democrats, it makes me laugh.

I'm talking about making the two big parties out up more palatable candidates.

Are you against that?

The problem is the definition of the term "palatable".

For the wingers, a hardcore partisan ideologue, the more hardcore the better, is the only palatable way to go. For them, any candidate who strays from that for even a moment is suspect. At least. If you don't obediently toe the line, you become an intra-party target.

So the issue here may be how to find a way to marginalize the whacked-out wings from the process. Right now, I just don't see that happening, and I don't know what would cause it. This shit has metastasized.
.

 

[candycorn]

Incorrect. Delegates pick who is their party nominee.

you never answered what happens if you have 2 or 3 consecutive elections with NOTA being the winner.

Sure I did. I said "pick better candidates".

The best candidate already got their part’s plurality of votes. They were disqualified by the NOTA option.

are you actually thinking that the hard right and hard left will support a compromise candidate?

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

And if NOTA doesn’t win…we get the status quo….

If NOTA does win, we get months of stalemate where NOTA wins a 1, 2, 3 or however many elections followed by a compromise candidate that couldn’t even win her/his party’s nominee for 4 elections in a row?

Hard pass.

NOTA doesn't "win", in fact any time that happens I have to count it as a straight up loss.

What NOTA does is force the "big two" parties to out up more appealing candidates.

Getting the most votes means you win. The only time NOTA is evoked is if it wins.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The best candidate already got their part’s plurality of votes. They were disqualified by the NOTA option.

are you actually thinking that the hard right and hard left will support a compromise candidate?

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

"So you wanna play rough? Hokay!"

Not sure where you're going with that.....

Whenever I hear the phrase "force them" from Democrats, it makes me laugh.

I'm talking about making the two big parties out up more palatable candidates.

Are you against that?

As I already explained, the process itself discourages the "palatable" candidates who should run from running.

Would you subject your family to media rape? I sure wouldn't.

 

[Crepitus]

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

"So you wanna play rough? Hokay!"

Not sure where you're going with that.....

Whenever I hear the phrase "force them" from Democrats, it makes me laugh.

I'm talking about making the two big parties out up more palatable candidates.

Are you against that?

The problem is the definition of the term "palatable".

For the wingers, a hardcore partisan ideologue, the more hardcore the better, is the only palatable way to go. For them, any candidate who strays from that for even a moment is suspect. At least. If you don't obediently toe the line, you become an intra-party target.

So the issue here may be how to find a way to marginalize the whacked-out wings from the process. Right now, I just don't see that happening, and I don't know what would cause it. This shit has metastasized.
.

Are the whack-job ends of the parties the majority?

I don't think they are, so why do we have to cater to them?

 

[Crepitus]

Sure I did. I said "pick better candidates".

The best candidate already got their part’s plurality of votes. They were disqualified by the NOTA option.

are you actually thinking that the hard right and hard left will support a compromise candidate?

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

And if NOTA doesn’t win…we get the status quo….

If NOTA does win, we get months of stalemate where NOTA wins a 1, 2, 3 or however many elections followed by a compromise candidate that couldn’t even win her/his party’s nominee for 4 elections in a row?

Hard pass.

NOTA doesn't "win", in fact any time that happens I have to count it as a straight up loss.

What NOTA does is force the "big two" parties to out up more appealing candidates.

Getting the most votes means you win. The only time NOTA is evoked is if it wins.

If you insist on looking at it that way fine.

I'd say it means everyone else lost.

 

[Crepitus]

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

"So you wanna play rough? Hokay!"

Not sure where you're going with that.....

Whenever I hear the phrase "force them" from Democrats, it makes me laugh.

I'm talking about making the two big parties out up more palatable candidates.

Are you against that?

As I already explained, the process itself discourages the "palatable" candidates who should run from running.

Would you subject your family to media rape? I sure wouldn't.

Well what's your solution then?

 

[Mac1958]

Are the whack-job ends of the parties the majority?
I don't think they are, so why do we have to cater to them?

No, absolutely not, they're not the majority.

But they represent 80% of the volume and 80% of the energy of the parties, so they have the most influence. They're the ones who will primary any politician who doesn't toe the line, they're the ones who will try to intimidate and control politicians, parties, politicos, donors, media.

So the wingers aren't playing by the same rules as the rest of us -- or by ANY rules, for that matter --and this is what it looks like.
.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"So you wanna play rough? Hokay!"

Not sure where you're going with that.....

Whenever I hear the phrase "force them" from Democrats, it makes me laugh.

I'm talking about making the two big parties out up more palatable candidates.

Are you against that?

As I already explained, the process itself discourages the "palatable" candidates who should run from running.

Would you subject your family to media rape? I sure wouldn't.

Well what's your solution then?

There is no overall solution that would not break the 1st Amendment, but surely individual "journalists" could face the fire for outright lying.

Don"t permit them to hide behind agency. Go after them personally.

Anyone heard from Jim Acosta lately?

 

[Crepitus]

Are the whack-job ends of the parties the majority?
I don't think they are, so why do we have to cater to them?

No, absolutely not, they're not the majority.

But they represent 80% of the volume and 80% of the energy of the parties, so they have the most influence. They're the ones who will primary any politician who doesn't toe the line, they're the ones who will try to intimidate and control politicians, parties, politicos, donors, media.

So the wingers aren't playing by the same rules as the rest of us -- or by ANY rules, for that matter --and this is what it looks like.
.

And if we NOTA their wing-nut candidates they will eventually have to come up with someone more moderate.

 

[Crepitus]

Not sure where you're going with that.....

Whenever I hear the phrase "force them" from Democrats, it makes me laugh.

I'm talking about making the two big parties out up more palatable candidates.

Are you against that?

As I already explained, the process itself discourages the "palatable" candidates who should run from running.

Would you subject your family to media rape? I sure wouldn't.

Well what's your solution then?

There is no overall solution that would not break the 1st Amendment, but surely individual "journalists" could face the fire for outright lying.

Don"t permit them to hide behind agency. Go after them personally.

Anyone heard from Jim Acosta lately?

That's not a battle you wanna fight my friend. Conservative media is so far gone it now classifies as "infotainment".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are the whack-job ends of the parties the majority?
I don't think they are, so why do we have to cater to them?

No, absolutely not, they're not the majority.

But they represent 80% of the volume and 80% of the energy of the parties, so they have the most influence. They're the ones who will primary any politician who doesn't toe the line, they're the ones who will try to intimidate and control politicians, parties, politicos, donors, media.

So the wingers aren't playing by the same rules as the rest of us -- or by ANY rules, for that matter --and this is what it looks like.
.

And if we NOTA their wing-nut candidates they will eventually have to come up with someone more moderate.

Actually, it would be much easier and far more likely to have moderate candidates on the final ballot by getting involved at the very local level and fomenting positive change to the political process as opposed to a futile effort to get ‘none of the above’ on the ballot.

 

[bripat9643]

Are the whack-job ends of the parties the majority?
I don't think they are, so why do we have to cater to them?

No, absolutely not, they're not the majority.

But they represent 80% of the volume and 80% of the energy of the parties, so they have the most influence. They're the ones who will primary any politician who doesn't toe the line, they're the ones who will try to intimidate and control politicians, parties, politicos, donors, media.

So the wingers aren't playing by the same rules as the rest of us -- or by ANY rules, for that matter --and this is what it looks like.
.

And if we NOTA their wing-nut candidates they will eventually have to come up with someone more moderate.

Actually, it would be much easier and far more likely to have moderate candidates on the final ballot by getting involved at the very local level and fomenting positive change to the political process as opposed to a futile effort to get ‘none of the above’ on the ballot.

In other words, you prefer the choice of scumbags we have now to any real choice.

 

[Crepitus]

Are the whack-job ends of the parties the majority?
I don't think they are, so why do we have to cater to them?

No, absolutely not, they're not the majority.

But they represent 80% of the volume and 80% of the energy of the parties, so they have the most influence. They're the ones who will primary any politician who doesn't toe the line, they're the ones who will try to intimidate and control politicians, parties, politicos, donors, media.

So the wingers aren't playing by the same rules as the rest of us -- or by ANY rules, for that matter --and this is what it looks like.
.

And if we NOTA their wing-nut candidates they will eventually have to come up with someone more moderate.

Actually, it would be much easier and far more likely to have moderate candidates on the final ballot by getting involved at the very local level and fomenting positive change to the political process as opposed to a futile effort to get ‘none of the above’ on the ballot.

NOTA is a last resort.

 

[candycorn]

The best candidate already got their part’s plurality of votes. They were disqualified by the NOTA option.

are you actually thinking that the hard right and hard left will support a compromise candidate?

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

And if NOTA doesn’t win…we get the status quo….

If NOTA does win, we get months of stalemate where NOTA wins a 1, 2, 3 or however many elections followed by a compromise candidate that couldn’t even win her/his party’s nominee for 4 elections in a row?

Hard pass.

NOTA doesn't "win", in fact any time that happens I have to count it as a straight up loss.

What NOTA does is force the "big two" parties to out up more appealing candidates.

Getting the most votes means you win. The only time NOTA is evoked is if it wins.

If you insist on looking at it that way fine.

I'd say it means everyone else lost.

Lol...massive difference...lol

you still never answered the question.

Walk us through what would have taken place if Trump and Clinton both got fewer votes than NOTA.

 

[Crepitus]

I'm thinking we need to force them to.

And if NOTA doesn’t win…we get the status quo….

If NOTA does win, we get months of stalemate where NOTA wins a 1, 2, 3 or however many elections followed by a compromise candidate that couldn’t even win her/his party’s nominee for 4 elections in a row?

Hard pass.

NOTA doesn't "win", in fact any time that happens I have to count it as a straight up loss.

What NOTA does is force the "big two" parties to out up more appealing candidates.

Getting the most votes means you win. The only time NOTA is evoked is if it wins.

If you insist on looking at it that way fine.

I'd say it means everyone else lost.

Lol...massive difference...lol

you still never answered the question.

Walk us through what would have taken place if Trump and Clinton both got fewer votes than NOTA.

I've already outlined a few ideas earlier in the thread, I think specifically in response to you.

I don't claim to have all the answers, I just know something needs to change or were gonna have an endless parade of tRumps and Clintons rolling through the election process and that's not what the country needs.