There was a proposal some years ago to “fix” the electoral system.
Every ballot would have NOTA (None Of The Above) as the last choice. For any election where NOTA won a clear majority (once, or perhaps twice in a row), that elective office would be dissolved permanently.
Of course, this is a political reform intended to “fix” electoral politics and over-government. As such it is a fairy tale, a unicorn, a lie and an illusion.
There are no political solutions to problems of politics.
Administrator
Author
May 19, 2015 12:44 pm
[img[/img]
Brian
May 19, 2015 1:25 pm
Where can I donate for nobody?
JoeNobody
May 19, 2015 1:42 pm
Thank you everyone for your trust in me. I will declare my candidacy shortly.
Russia Is Strong
May 19, 2015 2:23 pm
Sarcasm. Nobody gets it.
Administrator
Author
May 19, 2015 4:09 pm
[img[/img]
pissdragon
May 19, 2015 4:15 pm
nobody does it better. nobody doooooeeessss it, quite the wayyyy you do……
Spanky
May 19, 2015 5:26 pm
I like Nobody!
It seems to me that not only will it be necessary to end corporate campaign donations, as well as limit the amount wealthy individuals can give, but it would also be both useful and just that political campaign donations should not be allowed to cross political boundaries. By this, I mean that all contributions to a particular candidate should only come from the political district in which he or she is running for office. Or, in other words, a Senatorial candidate could only accept campaign contributions from within the state in which he or she stands for election. Similarly, a candidate standing for a seat in the House of Representatives may only accept contributions from person within their district. Only Presidential candidates could accept contributions from all fifty states (and none from international contributors).
It also seems that we are often faced with such distasteful candidates from both parties that many voters end up choosing the “lesser of two evils”. In such cases, it would seem that rejection of all candidates standing for that particular office (None of the Above) ought be a choice available to voters…
And finally, we need a kickstart. Something to get people’s attention and interest, and focus it on the corruption at hand. One thing about elections that is rarely mentioned is that they legitimate both the political process and the resulting government. Perhaps the most useful thing that can be done at this time is to focus public attention on both this and the fact that voting is our public, political voice. As such what would happen if a majority of Americans went to the polls and voted specifically to remove that legitimacy by tendering blank ballots?
Considering our recent history of political protest and the government’s reaction to those protests, not to mention their plans for controlling political dissent in the future, this might well be the only way to mount massive political resistance without triggering a violent police response.
There was a proposal some years ago to “fix” the electoral system.
Every ballot would have NOTA (None Of The Above) as the last choice. For any election where NOTA won a clear majority (once, or perhaps twice in a row), that elective office would be dissolved permanently.
Of course, this is a political reform intended to “fix” electoral politics and over-government. As such it is a fairy tale, a unicorn, a lie and an illusion.
There are no political solutions to problems of politics.
[img
[/img]
Where can I donate for nobody?
Thank you everyone for your trust in me. I will declare my candidacy shortly.
Sarcasm. Nobody gets it.
[img
[/img]
nobody does it better. nobody doooooeeessss it, quite the wayyyy you do……
I like Nobody!
It seems to me that not only will it be necessary to end corporate campaign donations, as well as limit the amount wealthy individuals can give, but it would also be both useful and just that political campaign donations should not be allowed to cross political boundaries. By this, I mean that all contributions to a particular candidate should only come from the political district in which he or she is running for office. Or, in other words, a Senatorial candidate could only accept campaign contributions from within the state in which he or she stands for election. Similarly, a candidate standing for a seat in the House of Representatives may only accept contributions from person within their district. Only Presidential candidates could accept contributions from all fifty states (and none from international contributors).
It also seems that we are often faced with such distasteful candidates from both parties that many voters end up choosing the “lesser of two evils”. In such cases, it would seem that rejection of all candidates standing for that particular office (None of the Above) ought be a choice available to voters…
And finally, we need a kickstart. Something to get people’s attention and interest, and focus it on the corruption at hand. One thing about elections that is rarely mentioned is that they legitimate both the political process and the resulting government. Perhaps the most useful thing that can be done at this time is to focus public attention on both this and the fact that voting is our public, political voice. As such what would happen if a majority of Americans went to the polls and voted specifically to remove that legitimacy by tendering blank ballots?
Considering our recent history of political protest and the government’s reaction to those protests, not to mention their plans for controlling political dissent in the future, this might well be the only way to mount massive political resistance without triggering a violent police response.