New Rules for elections: If less than 1/2 turnout, then the uncast ballots go to the LOWEST

[CK_John]

candidate on each ballot line. Example 4 candidates run for dog catcher the one with the lowest count would get all unused (uncast)votes in each precinct..

The count of voters would be made public 30 days prior to the elections.

This of course would have more parties(candidates) running since you could win by default.

It would all give us the government we deserve and cleanup the voter rolls.

You snooze you lose.

[drm604]

1. So the one with the least votes wins?

I can't get behind that.

[dems_rightnow]

2. In a world of dumb ideas..

... this takes the cake.

I should have put my name on the ballot for president. I'd have won in a landslide. Nobody would have actually voted for me or anything.....

[CK_John]

5. Many more elections than the big one, which usually gets more than 1/2 voters out.

[dems_rightnow]

8. And none of them would be won by anyone people voted for

Even in "the big one" with over 50% turnout, the final score would have been:

Me: 43.2%
Obama: 31.8%
McCain: 24.4%

Surely you'd have to agree that this would be a ridiculous thing?

[LARED]

3. How about a mandatory candidate on the bottom of each office named

"None of the above"

[CK_John]

6. Why give the decision challenge another shot. Election are to elect or unelect someone.

What do you do hold another election for the none of the above.

[jp11]

4. Nah if less than 1/2 the registered voters turn up then we randomly elect

someone who's done prison time.

[CK_John]

7. Why don't they take the time to get on the ballot.

[Ian David]

9. What if certain government funding was determined by voter participation?

For example, federal highway funds.

If $30 million is earmarked or allocated to your district, and there's a 50% voter turn-out, you only get $15 million that year. The rest goes back to the Treasury.

Libertarians and Conservatives who don't think the federal government should be spending money, and think that we need to reduce the deficit, can stay home and not vote, to reduce government spending.

[SheilaT]

10. What an interesting assumption,

that those who didn't bother to vote would have voted for the person who actually got the fewest votes.

What is your logic for this?

How would it clean up voter rolls? At least some states essentially never purge their voter rolls because of potential for purging actual voters who will finally decide to vote after some years of not doing so. Which means far more voters are on the rolls than are actually living, living in that voting area, and intending to vote. So in places like that this would be a genuinely dumb idea.

I have no idea what can be done to persuade people to first of all register, and then actually show up and vote, especially in primary elections and off-year elections. But your suggestion wouldn't help any.

[randome]

11. To increase voter participation, maybe?

Maybe it's not a good idea but at least it's AN idea.

Perhaps a better idea would be to hold the election over -and keep holding another one- until more than half of eligible voters vote.

[CK_John]

12. Since motor voter changes the voter roolers are purged of dead/moving

voters. So this be less of a problem down the road.

But people at the local level need to get envolved.
Maybe we should just cancel driver lic or issue an civil fine of 1000$ for not voting.

[cthulu2016]

13. Doing what Australia does would make more sense

The presumption in the OP proposal is to appeal to the non-voter's sense of interest in the outcome of elections, which is problematic, since they already demonstrate a low level of interest in who wins.

And the proposal penalizes people who vote for the fact that other do not vote, which is bizarre. (It selects the candidate least favored by those who actually voted, which is a penalty to the voter.)

Since the proposal is way out there it is even less likely to be enacted than a more straightforward requirement that people vote, like in Australia.

If people who do not vote are fined then not voting because a privilege of the rich... which sounds fine to me!

[CK_John]

14. So what do they do?

[cthulu2016]

15. There is a fine for not voting in Australia

As a civil libertarian I think the right to votes includes the right not to vote.

But demographically, if we had had the Australian system no republican president would ever be elected again, so I wouldn't mind it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. You want to put Lyndon LaRouche in the White House?

You are a loon...

[CK_John]

17. When is the last presidental election that had less than 1/2 turnout??

Not a problem, but dog catcher maybe.

[ButterflyBlood]

18. Small offices are important too

They might not seem like a big deal and probably shouldn't be voted on, but I'd hate to see even a county clerk office held by a communist, Nazi or random guy who just like being on the ballot.

[CK_John]

19. Local offices are the most important and the DNC needs a 50 state program

to train and mentor a farm league of candidates.

[FSogol]

20. A CK_John Classic! Is your goal to have 3,000+ candidates for each office?

[CK_John]

21. Just better turnout. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. Provide a tax-rebate for people who vote.

When you vote, you get a unique tag or receipt linked to your name.
Enter this unique receipt number on your taxes and get a $100 tax rebate.