Is it true about the US ballot papers?

[studiot]

I was listening to a BBC interview with an American this morning, who said that he was going to put is choice in the

 

"Little box at the bottom marked none of these"

 

Is it true that the Americans have this advanced option on their ballot papers?

 

I would love to see them introduced here.

[imatfaal]

I was listening to a BBC interview with an American this morning, who said that he was going to put is choice in the

 

"Little box at the bottom marked none of these"

 

Is it true that the Americans have this advanced option on their ballot papers?

 

I would love to see them introduced here.

 

They definitely have the ability to "write in " candidates - this, I believe, has actually ocurred at not unimportant elections and substantial numbers of votes are cast for candidates who do not appear on the ballot paper. I also believe that in most jurisdictions of the USA that this is a valid vote as long as the write in candidate is properly identified.

 

I agree with your sentiment - there should be a "none of the above" and IMO voting should be mandatory

[DrKrettin]

 

and IMO voting should be mandatory

 

I guess this topic should have its own thread. My own view is that not many people have any kind of political opinion, and most that do have one are badly informed anyway. If you force people to vote, then you include half the population who would vote on entirely spurious criteria, and it would devalue the democratic process which is already devalued enough.

[swansont]

I think there are areas where you need a certain % of the vote to be elected, so "none of the above" is an option. But only for certain elected positions. Not for president.

 

 

They definitely have the ability to "write in " candidates - this, I believe, has actually ocurred at not unimportant elections and substantial numbers of votes are cast for candidates who do not appear on the ballot paper. I also believe that in most jurisdictions of the USA that this is a valid vote as long as the write in candidate is properly identified.

 

 

 

One issue here is that the names have to match to count. IIRC, if you have votes for "John Smith", Jon Smith", and "Jonathan Smith", each gets one vote tallied. It has to be the name the person filed — most states that allow write-in POTUS votes require a letter of intent or some other paperwork — in order to count for them.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-frankel/how-to-be-a-writein-candi_b_9841786.html

 

In Illinois, you can't be a write-in if you lost a primary. Seven states don't allow write-in candidates for president.

[studiot]

Thanks for the information, folks.

 

Please feel free to morph this thread into a general discussion on voting methods.

 

I would be prepared to consider seriously mandatory voting if I could register that I was being forced to accept candidates, none of whom I wanted to see successful.

[Delta1212]

Even with mandatory voting, there is always the option of handing in a blank ballot, or leaving blank whatever position you don't like any of the candidates for in the case of multiple elections. Has a similar effect and no one can do anything about it as long as it's a secret ballot.

[Ophiolite]

The option "None of the above" exists in a practical sense on all ballot papers. Simply write the following, or something more closely matching your sentiment, on the ballot paper.

 

They are all corrupt fools.

 

This will be treated as a spoiled ballot paper, but you have still exercised your democratic right. And besides, I imagine it feels good.

 

Edit: I missed Delta1212's post, which proposes much the same thing.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Ophiolite

[zapatos]

At the other extreme maybe we'd be better off limiting who gets to vote. In the early history of the US, only white, adult, male, land-owners could vote. I suspect part of the reason for limiting who could vote was an attempt to ensure that the people who picked the leaders had some minimal knowledge of what their selection might mean to the country.

 

Perhaps we could limit the vote to those who complete a publicly funded training course in civics/geopolitics at least once every four years.

[Phi for All]

At the other extreme maybe we'd be better off limiting who gets to vote. In the early history of the US, only white, adult, male, land-owners could vote. I suspect part of the reason for limiting who could vote was an attempt to ensure that the people who picked the leaders had some minimal knowledge of what their selection might mean to the country.

 

Perhaps we could limit the vote to those who complete a publicly funded training course in civics/geopolitics at least once every four years.

 

I hate the thought of making voting exclusive, but it would hold a certain extra appeal for some who don't vote now if not just everybody got an automatic vote. If you had to do something to earn the right, like run for office, or serve in the military, or volunteer for a civic program, or graduate from college, or pass some kind of test to show you understand the basic workings of government, perhaps people would treat their vote as the valuable investment it is.

[imatfaal]

..

 

Perhaps we could limit the vote to those who complete a publicly funded training course in civics/geopolitics at least once every four years.

 

Could we limit the candidate with those criteria as well?

[Delta1212]

At the other extreme maybe we'd be better off limiting who gets to vote. In the early history of the US, only white, adult, male, land-owners could vote. I suspect part of the reason for limiting who could vote was an attempt to ensure that the people who picked the leaders had some minimal knowledge of what their selection might mean to the country.

 

Perhaps we could limit the vote to those who complete a publicly funded training course in civics/geopolitics at least once every four years.

The problem is that any hurdle that you are legally allowed to place between citizens and the ability to vote will, somewhere and somewhen, be used to disenfranchise people based on who they are likely to vote for, both on an institutional and individual level.

 

Need to take a class every four years? Where are the classes located? What hours are available? Who teaches them? What class sizes do you have? How long does it take? Do you have to pass or is it just attendance based? If online classes are available, how do you ensure access to people without stable internet access?

 

There are lots of details here that can be tweaked slightly to make it easier or harder for specific groups to complete the requirements, and most of them can be easily justified by pointing to budget considerations as the primary driver.

[DrP]

Ha Ha! Awesome suggestion Imat.

Edited November 2, 2016 by DrP

[swansont]

At the other extreme maybe we'd be better off limiting who gets to vote. In the early history of the US, only white, adult, male, land-owners could vote. I suspect part of the reason for limiting who could vote was an attempt to ensure that the people who picked the leaders had some minimal knowledge of what their selection might mean to the country.

 

Perhaps we could limit the vote to those who complete a publicly funded training course in civics/geopolitics at least once every four years.

 

 

Disenfranchisement isn't going to go over well with a lot of people. This smacks of the literacy tests of yore. It's already hard enough for marginalized people to vote and this would make it harder, for many of the same reasons.

 

One problem when only white, male land-onwers could vote is that the laws tend to favor white, male land-owners.

[DrmDoc]

 

They definitely have the ability to "write in " candidates - this, I believe, has actually ocurred at not unimportant elections and substantial numbers of votes are cast for candidates who do not appear on the ballot paper. I also believe that in most jurisdictions of the USA that this is a valid vote as long as the write in candidate is properly identified.

 

I agree with your sentiment - there should be a "none of the above" and IMO voting should be mandatory

 

Voting is a right and privilege of a free society where freedom of choice, IMO, is bedrock. Mandatory voting negates our freedom to choose not to participate in or perpetuate an unsavory political system that otherwise we would in good conscience under better circumstance. Americans don't like being told or ordered what to do, I think we prefer to be persuasion by what's in our best interests. With that said, I think it is in our best interest to participate in the system if we want the system to change. Like America in the Sixties, that sort of change comes with every new generation of young participants whose social ideas have evolved under compelling conditions far removed from those of an earlier time and generation. What Americans sought through Obama's election and is currently being perverted by Trump is, I believe, exactly that sort of change in progress.

Edited November 2, 2016 by DrmDoc

[MigL]

Lets not fall into the rut of the smug intellectuals, by claiming that only the 'enlightened' have a right to vote.

EVERYONE has the right to vote. It is NOT a privilege.

 

The revolution was fought over " No taxation without representation ".

So we already do something to earn the right to vote.

We pay taxes !

[CharonY]

Lets not fall into the rut of the smug intellectuals, by claiming that only the 'enlightened' have a right to vote.

EVERYONE has the right to vote. It is NOT a privilege.

 

 

Actually that is not quite true. There are limitations to voting rights, some of which are pretty universal (only naturalized citizens, regardless whether you pay taxes) whereas others are a bit more complicated, such as felon voting or voter-id laws.

Edited November 2, 2016 by CharonY

[MigL]

Hey, what do I know, I'm Canadian.

Watching you guys in the middle of the most embarrassing election ever.

[DrmDoc]

Lets not fall into the rut of the smug intellectuals, by claiming that only the 'enlightened' have a right to vote.

EVERYONE has the right to vote. It is NOT a privilege.

 

Perhaps in Canada, but not in America as CharonY conveyed. Voting is a privilege afforded our citizenry who qualify and conform to limits of law and standards set by our government. It's a privilege in that we are able to effect changes in the direction of our nation through an election process that allows our free selection of leadership rather than dictatorial rule.

[MigL]

So you're saying its a privilege to live in a democracy rather than under a dictator ?

I thought a large number of people had given their lives to ensure that it was a RIGHT, and not a privilege.

( wear a poppy and remember their sacrifices on Nov.11 )

[DrmDoc]

So you're saying its a privilege to live in a democracy rather than under a dictator ?

I thought a large number of people had given their lives to ensure that it was a RIGHT, and not a privilege.

( wear a poppy and remember their sacrifices on Nov.11 )

 

Yes, democracies are more privileged societies than dictatorships. Democracies offer freedoms under a collective and majority rule where ordinary citizens decide their governance rather than the dictates of a single individual or ruling class. It's a privilege to live in a democratic society because of the sacrifices others have made and continue to make on our behalf for the freedoms we enjoy.

[CharonY]

I think Canada had also restrictions on voting rights for prisoners up until relatively recently . And there are restrictions for citizens who live abroad for more than five years, I believe. Voter ID laws have a different history in either country, so while they are mandatory in Canada, they are generally not seen as that restrictive.

[Der_Neugierige]

Ballot paper. I always read "toilet paper".

[iNow]

Voting should be compulsory.

Civics classes should be mandatory.

Election Day should be a national holiday.

Instant Runoff voting should be universal.

Electoral district lines should be drawn by independent 3rd parties based on consistent logical standards.

Limits should be set on total number of terms members of congress can serve.

Laws should be enacted that congress representatives cannot work in a lobbying job for at least 5-years after leaving office.

Lobbying should be disallowed entirely, or at least be made money-free.

Campaign funding should be driven solely through "credits" which each citizen receives and can spend/share/trade however they see fit.

Elections should last no more than 60 days.

 

And other ideas... implementation of any of which would vastly improve our current circus.

[DrmDoc]

Voting should be compulsory.

Civics classes should be mandatory.

Election Day should be a national holiday.

Instant Runoff voting should be universal.

Electoral district lines should be drawn by independent 3rd parties based on consistent logical standards.

Limits should be set on total number of terms members of congress can serve.

Laws should be enacted that congress representatives cannot work in a lobbying job for at least 5-years after leaving office.

Lobbying should be disallowed entirely, or at least be made money-free.

Campaign funding should be driven solely through "credits" which each citizen receives and can spend/share/trade however they see fit.

Elections should last no more than 60 days.

 

And other ideas... implementation of any of which would vastly improve our current circus.

 

I disagree with only one--voting shouldn't be compulsory. Compulsory voting smacks of fear and punishment induced participation, which I think is contrary to the ideas of a free society. Instead, those who do vote could be immediately extended some privilege or benefit that those who are eligible and do not vote would likely covet. Americans can be an impatient lot with progress, which is why some, IMO, see futility in voting. I think voter participation would increase to near complete when citizens are shown or given some immediate and real benefit for their participation in the process. I agree that the privilege of voting in a free society is essential to the freedoms we enjoy and should be our citizens only reward; however, I don't think the reward many of us desire comes quickly or is solely satisfied by the ballot.

Edited November 3, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Ophiolite]

I agree that voting should not be compulsory. However, those who do not vote would be forbidden from expressing any political view until the next election. Any breach of this prohibition would be met with a solid punch on the nose.