Jim Lantern – Centrist Independent (unaffiliated) Voter
Editorial Article + Poll – 30 August 2016
If you could, would you reject all current Election 2016 candidates, demand political parties find better candidates?
The following is a repeat of an editorial article published earlier today, which relates to this subject…
A Vote of No Confidence in Election 2016
Our system of voting, as is, is for voters to vote for the candidate who they want to win the election. Each voter only gets one vote. Each voter can only check one box.
As a matter of perspective, it has been described that by voting for one candidate your are voting against the other candidate of an election in which there are only two choices. Further, it has been said that by voting for a third choice, if there is one, then it is the same as voting against one of the others – or by taking votes away from one will cause the other (undesired) candidate to win – therefore discouraging a third choice.
We The People have never been given the option to directly vote against a candidate. By each candidate’s name there is only one box to check, and doing so means you are voting in favor of that candidate. What if there were to be a second box to check by the name of each candidate as a means to vote against a candidate? I first thought of that for local elections of judges running unopposed – so for lack of someone running against them the one is likely to win.
However, some ballots allow it as a question for some, such as “Shall Judge J be retained?” Check Yes or No. What happens if the majority is No? The judge does not get to keep his job, and then there will be a special election to present another candidate if one is found, unless someone else is to be appointed.
For presidential candidates, what if you as a voter strongly reject both or all candidates on the ballot? Your one vote could be to check a box next to a candidate name for who you most oppose rather than a vote for “the lesser of two evils” as we are presently forced to do. Or the least of three or more evils if more than two choices and all are considered to be bad. Then perhaps a vote against a candidate is counted as a negative, a vote for a candidate is counted as a positive; the total of the negatives to be subtracted from the total of the positives for a total score per candidate. So you are voting against a candidate instead of voting for a candidate.
Further, if you reject all choices on the ballot, then check the box to toss all of them out! We should have that option! If the majority of voters reject all choices, then new candidates and a new election would be called for. It would be a vote of no confidence in the current election and its candidates to demand a new election with new or different candidates.
So to hell with all of them – you demand the system find better choices, rather than accepting a system that is forcing you to vote for unacceptable choices. When faced with that reality – our current reality for Election 2016, some voters will refuse to vote as the only means to reject current choices.
Same for U.S. Congress – House and Senate. The way it should be…
Before the 6 August 2015 Republican presidential candidates debate, the Clinton and Trump ongoing revelations, I had completely different expectations for Election 2016. I believed New Jersey Governor Chris Christi would overcome his own “bridge” controversy, recover in polls, and become the GOP nominee. I didn’t believe Hillary Clinton would be well enough to get into the race, considering her bad health at the end of her run as Secretary of State, as well as the Benghazi and emails controversy.
A year ago, I didn’t yet know anything about Bernie Sanders. I was disappointed when Jim Webb left the Democratic presidential candidates race. I didn’t expect the Libertarians to make a comeback for this election with a candidate who could get on the ballots of all states.
I didn’t expect the mainstream news media to make such a mess of it all – especially FNC (Fox News) and CNN, as well as surprised MSNBC has been the most reasonable with coverage.
I expected the candidates and news media to focus on major issues instead of engaging in childish personal insults. I expected the debates to force the real issues instead of deliberately fanning the flames of personal insults.
I can only hope that the 26 September 2016 presidential debate between Clinton and Trump – if Trump shows up, and maybe with Johnson if allowed to participate, will be professional – focusing on major issues, instead of like the past unprofessional badly moderated debates. That debate could be the key turning point if properly moderated and if the candidates stick to the major issues instead of engaging in more personal insults of each other. However, the political debate forecast is more likely to be for 50 feet of rain and biblical basketball size hail.
“A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, censure motion, no-confidence motion, or (unsuccessful) confidence motion) is a statement or vote that a person or persons in a position of responsibility (government, managerial, etc.) is no longer deemed fit to hold that position: perhaps because they are inadequate in some respect, are failing to carry out obligations, or are making decisions that other members feel are detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government.” – Wikipedia article.
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Scene 5…
Anakin Skywalker: I don’t think the system works.
Padmé: How would you have it work?
Anakin Skywalker: We need a system where the politicians sit down
and discuss the problem… agree what’s in the best interest of all people… and then do it.
Padmé: That’s exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don’t always agree.
Anakin Skywalker: Well, then they should be made to.
Padmé: By whom? Who’s going to make them?
Anakin Skywalker: I don’t know. Someone.
Anakin Skywalker: Of course not me.
Padmé: But someone.
Anakin Skywalker: Someone wise.
Padmé: Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
Anakin Skywalker: Well, if it works.
Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith…
Padmé: What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we have been fighting to destroy?