www.ditl.org

They can bitch all they want, but in the end they shouldn't be elected because they happen to suck marginally less than their co-candidate.

You know we do have other candidates to choose from. Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader. Their biggest advantage they have over the big two is that they are not Republicans or Democrats. If you have zero faith in the two power elites of U.S. politics, there are other options than not voting. Not voting only helps the two major parties continue to share and maintain power. If you really want change, vote for something besides a Democrat or a Republican.

Should an uninformed person abstain from voting?

No. Everyone has a right to vote. If the voters are uninformed it's their own fault for choosing not to know about their prospective candidates. If they vote for dumb reasons i.e. "this guy is a born-again Christian, the other guy isn't," then the voters deserve whatever fate befalls them. They don't want to know anything else about a candidate except "he belongs to my party," "he looks right", "he is just as dumb as me," "when she winks, she winks at me!"

On a personal note, it stuns me to see how so many non-U.S. Americans actually know enough about the two candidates running for President, even what parties they are running from. Yet I cannot even name the President (or Prime Minister?) of New Zealand nor Ireland, nor can I say what party Gordon Brown belongs to or what he represents. It's kind of humbling to see that citizens of foreign nations are informed of what's going on in the U.S.

IanKennedy wrote:

Teaos wrote:I've always thought that not voting is a perfectly acceptable form of social protest.

It's not so much a protest as a sign of apathy. If you want to protest a vote there should be an option on the ballot that offers 'none of the above'. If it gets enough votes then all candidates should be bard from the election and other candidates should be required.

Nice in theory, not terribly practical.

The US election process runs something like a year. Do we really want to put the public through that again after the big day?

Not to mention that the election process has a profound impact on US politics - essentially it's impossible to do anything serious in politics during the election period.

Who is president while that happens? Still Bush? By what right?

Suppose it comes up none of the above a second time, or a third for that matter?

GrahamKennedy wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:

Teaos wrote:I've always thought that not voting is a perfectly acceptable form of social protest.

It's not so much a protest as a sign of apathy. If you want to protest a vote there should be an option on the ballot that offers 'none of the above'. If it gets enough votes then all candidates should be bard from the election and other candidates should be required.

Nice in theory, not terribly practical.

The US election process runs something like a year. Do we really want to put the public through that again after the big day?

Not to mention that the election process has a profound impact on US politics - essentially it's impossible to do anything serious in politics during the election period.

Who is president while that happens? Still Bush? By what right?

Suppose it comes up none of the above a second time, or a third for that matter?

All of those are a problem of their own making, there's no reason the election should last that long, ours certainly don't. If they don't want people to vote that way they they had better come up with decent candidates then, rather than the likes of Bush. Basically, it puts the power in the hands of the people rather than the parties. Currently they get to give them two candidates of their choosing and they only get to choose which of the clowns to appoint. With this scheme they have to work hard to get someone people like.

IanKennedy wrote:All of those are a problem of their own making, there's no reason the election should last that long, ours certainly don't.

So you want to, what, eliminate the primaries, too? And do away with fixed term limits incidentally, which is a major contributing factor to a long campaign.

If they don't want people to vote that way they they had better come up with decent candidates then, rather than the likes of Bush. Basically, it puts the power in the hands of the people rather than the parties. Currently they get to give them two candidates of their choosing and they only get to choose which of the clowns to appoint. With this scheme they have to work hard to get someone people like.

And if under that system Obama and McCain had been rejected, then we get more of Bush. And if the next ones get rejected, more Bush still. And more, and more. Not a good system, methinks.

GrahamKennedy wrote:So you want to, what, eliminate the primaries, too? And do away with fixed term limits incidentally, which is a major contributing factor to a long campaign.

The primaries are totally irrelevant to the the election, they are simply a political party choosing a candidate. The general public are not involved only party members, if not then the Republicans would all vote for the worst Democrat candidate so they go chosen, and vice-versa. In other words if the parties want them they can have them but they don't count as part of the election.

And if under that system Obama and McCain had been rejected, then we get more of Bush. And if the next ones get rejected, more Bush still. And more, and more. Not a good system, methinks.

Never have I said the guy that's in gets to keep going, that was your invention not mine. You can let the other branches keep things ticking over as they always do, once the election is decided then you can kick off on new policies. Basically the system freezes, much as it does now with the lame duck, but government continues. With a short election timeline it wouldn't be much of an issue. Also, take out the nonsense of the winner being kept out of office once he's been elected. Way do they have to wait until January to get into office, if makes no sense. Once that is removed then it becomes a say six week event, much like ours. You can still have campaigning before the starting pistol if you want I don't see a problem with that. It happens over here, lots of campaigning occurs before the election is actually called...

IanKennedy wrote:The primaries are totally irrelevant to the the election, they are simply a political party choosing a candidate. The general public are not involved only party members, if not then the Republicans would all vote for the worst Democrat candidate so they go chosen, and vice-versa. In other words if the parties want them they can have them but they don't count as part of the election.

Actually there are open primaries now where anybody can vote regardless of party affiliation.

But in any case, so what? If the candidates get rejected then the primaries would still have to be run all over again to get a new set of candidates. Which means a long, drawn out election process.

Never have I said the guy that's in gets to keep going, that was your invention not mine. You can let the other branches keep things ticking over as they always do,

Um, whatnow? How would the other branches keep the presidency ticking over, exactly? Like for instance how would the other branches of government perform as commander in chief of the armed forces? If a nuclear strike was launched on the US for instance, who would order the counter strike (or not)?

Basically the system freezes, much as it does now with the lame duck, but government continues. With a short election timeline it wouldn't be much of an issue. Also, take out the nonsense of the winner being kept out of office once he's been elected. Way do they have to wait until January to get into office, if makes no sense.

The idea is to give him time to put his government together and ease into things. For instance there are several thousand political apointees that Obama has to decide on. He has to be briefed on all kinds of things that he's not privy to right now. And so on.

The none of the above thing is a nice theory, but it's impractical even in our system IMO, and certainly it could never hope to be anything but a horrible disaster in the US system.

Unfortunately, as has been said, not voting has historically (in the US, at least) been due to apathy rather than conscious protest. The abstainees have historically been inner-city, lower-income, and minority voters - if those groups had a historically higher turn-out, Republican presidents would be rare indeed. And simply not showing up to vote isn't merely a statement about a particular race; if I hadn't voted, then not only would I have abstained from the presidential election, but also from a senatorial one, several county ones, and some important state referendums.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Actually there are open primaries now where anybody can vote regardless of party affiliation.

Well that's just plain dumb, how are you mean to get the best candidate for your party if you let the opposition spoil your poll.

But in any case, so what? If the candidates get rejected then the primaries would still have to be run all over again to get a new set of candidates. Which means a long, drawn out election process.

Only if that's the way the choose to do it. If you put a finite time limit on it then they best do better or not have a candidate for the re-run.

Um, whatnow? How would the other branches keep the presidency ticking over, exactly? Like for instance how would the other branches of government perform as commander in chief of the armed forces? If a nuclear strike was launched on the US for instance, who would order the counter strike (or not)?

So, what happens now if such a thing is needed after the election and before the new guy is signed in. Who gets to decide what happens. I can't see that this is much different.

The idea is to give him time to put his government together and ease into things. For instance there are several thousand political apointees that Obama has to decide on. He has to be briefed on all kinds of things that he's not privy to right now. And so on.

Doesn't seem to be a problem for our elections so I don't see why is should be a problem for them. We have the election on one day and the new government takes office the next day.

The none of the above thing is a nice theory, but it's impractical even in our system IMO, and certainly it could never hope to be anything but a horrible disaster in the US system.

I don't see why, it's nothing that they don't have to cope with now during the eternity that happens after the election and the start of the actual job.

We do (sort of) have a "none of the above" category - every voter has the opportunity to vote for a "write-in" candidate.

What, you mean that you all get to vote for yourself to be president. How cool.

Next election, I'm voting for Batman.

IanKennedy wrote:What, you mean that you all get to vote for yourself to be president. How cool.

Obviously it's not intended to promote everyone voting for someone different, but it is definitely there as an option for folks who really want an alternate voice to be heard. Of course, there's always a few votes for "Mickey Mouse" or some such.