How about NONE-Of-The-ABOVE in all elections?

[AnArmyVeteran]

Poll question: How about NONE-Of-The-ABOVE in all elections?

How many of you would vote for "None of the Above" if given the option while casting a ballot? I'm a democrat, but that doesn't mean I like all their candidates. All I have to do is gaze at the political landscape of republicans, democrats and independents to see herds and herds of either cowards, corporate prostitutes or inept officeholders. There are a lot of good people in office, but they seem to be the exception. Sadly, conviction in an officeholder only seems to come after they were indicted and tried. Very few of our 'leaders' have courage, creativity, intelligence, honor or true conviction.

I'm getting tired of being deceived and lied to by those I trusted with my hard work and my votes. I believe the only way to ensure we get candidates who aren't owned by the wealthy or corporations is to have "None of the Above" put on every ballot in the country. And if no candidate can get more votes than "None of the Above" they are eliminated for further participation in that election. Yes, it would lead to selecting another group of candidates and even another. But maybe, just maybe, we can circumvent the system that only allows the rich or those owned by the rich to participate in elections. Even those with deep pockets would find it difficult to keep buying election after election if "None of the Above" was on every ballot.

To pay for the increased number of elections 25% of every campaign contribution would be taxed to fund elections. If the rich have enough money to buy candidates and multi-million dollar ad campaigns they have enough to pay for our elections. The government would no longer have to pay for elections, the rich and the corporations would. Currently, 'we the people' are paying for elections with our taxes, only to have candidates bought and paid for by those with great wealth. It's like we're paying for dues to an exclusive country club, but we're not allowed in.

I know a lot of people who would make better representatives than most of the people in office. But they would never sell themselves out to anyone to accumulate enough money it takes to win an election. Face it, regular people all around you could do better jobs than most politicians. They have to work for a living. They have to be creative and frugal just to make ends meet. That's the kind of people we need in office. Rich people are mostly clueless about what a typical American has to face every day of their lives.

Because of the recent 'Citizens United' case by the corrupt conservatives on the Supreme Court the masses will no longer have any say in elections. They will be drown out by massive amounts of money flooding into their districts and states from across the country and even from foreign corporations. Money isn't free speech. It stifles the voices of the masses. We the people have been hanging on by just a thread, but now that corporations can pollute every election in America with their bottomless pits of corrupting cash that thread has been severed.

We'll never be able to pass meaningful campaign finance laws to restrict the flow of money. The Supreme Court has already decided that money is free speech. So one solution would be to change the way our elections are held. We the people need to stand up or we will be forever tied to our seats, without voices, without representation and without hope.

Our country is sinking and the rich and the powerful keep pouring more water on it. That has to change or our country is doomed.

[Imajika]

1. Yes, I love this idea...

I've always thought an option for none of choices on the ballot would be great.

Not sure how best to implement it, but I definitely favor the idea.

[marybourg]

2. And then what? nt.

[defendandprotect]

50. THEN . . . if a party wants to actually put a candidate in office . . .

they go back and find a new candidate --

[hobbit709]

3. TPTB would never go for it

Because None of the above would win most elections.

At least 1/2 of the time I end voting for the one I'm least against-and even then sometimes I have to hold my nose.

[Oregone]

4. This would humiliate politicians (NOTA would win often)

Hence I like it

[spoony]

7. Agreed, it's saying, "It's not that I don't care enough to vote, you just suck." nt

[hootinholler]

76. Only in the first couple of elections

I suspect the quality of candidates would go up.

-Hoot

[AnArmyVeteran]

85. Bingo, it seems only about three people actually read my entire OP. (sad)

You're right, the quality of candidates would go up as the corrupting influence of money went down.

[KonaKane]

5. Yeah that's gonna work.

I cannot wait to see "nobody" sworn in on inauguration day.

Some of you people....wow.....

[AnArmyVeteran]

77. You miss the point. I never said 'nobody' would win.

Just the field of candidates would keep getting better and better with each subsequent election. I don't know if you read my entire OP but I clearly pointed out how to pay for it and also that it would lead to better, more qualified and more honest people getting elected. It would also stop the revolving door of political prostitutes going to Washington DC.

The status quo does not work. It's infected and it needs to be replaced. I proposed one idea and the best way to resolve problems is by brainstorming with other people capable of adding to the discussion with their own ideas or improving the ideas of others. That's the most constructive way of resolving problems or creating anything.

[scheming daemons]

6. Every Democrat/Liberal/Progressive that votes "none of the above" helps empower the GOP

Because THEIR side isn't going to vote "none of the above".


Voting that way puts the right wing in power.



They're loving your idea.

[KonaKane]

8. Hard to believe that has to be explained here, of all places.

...

[spoony]

12. Do you believe that politicians have to earn votes?

Or is their appearance on the ballot enough?

[scheming daemons]

13. The conservatives in this country will vote lock-step...

Your high-minded ideas will result in GOP majorities.


But at least you'll have a clear conscience.


:eyes:

[spoony]

14. Once again, do you believe they ought to earn our votes?

If they do, there's no problem. If they fail to do so, you blame the voters? There's something remarkably UNdemocratic about that attitude.

[KonaKane]

19. What do you think a NOTA vote will accomplish, besides nothing?

Oh that's right, zero. Zero plus nothing.

[scheming daemons]

64. So you'll be rewarding people (GOP) that have done even LESS to earn our votes

Good plan.

:eyes:

[redqueen]

81. It's logic!

Step 1: refuse to vote for anyone cause they're not good enough
Step 2: watch as the GOP sweeps the elections
Step 3: declare victory!

[KonaKane]

15. Hey, cast your none of the above nifty cool symbolic vote.

Then you can celebrate your symbolic victory as the GOP sweeps into power and spends you into another war.

[spoony]

17. Right, because voting for Dems has been successful in ending war.

Oh, whoops. Maybe, just maybe, it's your vote that's the symbolic one, since it's based on some intangible hope that Dems will start acting like they ought to. Maybe mine, NOTA, would be the pragmatic vote, the one based in reality.

[KonaKane]

18. And letting the GOP back into power will surely mean another one.

But please keep dreaming of your marvelous symbolic victory, by all means.

[defendandprotect]

53. No one wants to go backwards . . . we want to actually move forward . . .

We need another candidate in 2012 --

Obama is more status quo than CHANGE -- !!

Whitehouse, Grayson, Feingold --

Anyone else -- give me Michael Moore -- Ed Schultz --

Just give me someone who can stand up to corporations and the MIC --

That would help!

[KonaKane]

61. You cannot be serious

You think any of those people you mentioned, as much as I like them, has a chance at the oval office? Holy fuck, there is some mean delusion around these parts lately.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

97. just imagine, given their way, they could make the dems a fringe party in one election cycle. it's

hillarious.

[scheming daemons]

67. Your approach guarantees a MORE conservative government

By the way.... Whitehouse, Grayson, Feingold, Moore, and Schultz will all be strongly supporting Barack Obama in 2012.


(and for all your whining, you will too.... though you'll never admit it here).

[KonaKane]

87. Wow, you would think that would be obvious.

What the hell is happening to this place?

[scheming daemons]

66. So explain exactly how increasing the GOP numbers in congress will help in this goal?

a "NOTA" vote will result in increased GOP numbers in congress. That's a fact.


For all of your idealistic reasons for voting NOTA, the end result is a stronger conservative presence in congress.



What you believe about a politician earning your vote is nice an honorable.... but the end result of the proposal in the OP is for an increase in the number of politicians who have done even less to earn your vote.


NOTA enables politicians like Sarah Palin to win elections.


40% of this country will vote for the conservative candidate no matter what. Every vote that goes to NOTA instead of the less-conservative candidate increases the ability of the MORE conservative candidate to win.



What good is your idealistic approach if the end result is a congress that reflects your will EVEN LESS?


Don't be so thick.

[redqueen]

80. Really?

Is it really?

I think it is decidedly not hard to believe. At all. In the slightest. Every day there is ample evidence that this lesson needs to be re-taught. Over and over and over and over and over.

It'd be great if we could learn from our past mistakes... or the mistakes of others... but no.

[defendandprotect]

52. Really . . . you think that the Democrats would continue to put up

candidates not acceptable to Democratic voters?

hmmm.....

[scheming daemons]

70. Really... you think the solution is to empower Republican candidates?

That's what a NOTA vote does.

[treestar]

9. Oh the drama. Oh the victimization.

You are so helpless, just the victim of your elected officials, who are all bad, just because they are elected by the majority! :nopity:

[spoony]

11. I see this isn't playing well with the "you OWE your vote to the party" contingent. nt

[KonaKane]

16. Ah but it is to the "we want to be completely irrelevent" contingent.

That there is one brilliant political strategerie!

[Individualist]

75. +1

[Lilith Velkor]

79. bwahahaha

:thumbsup:

[KonaKane]

21. Ah but never fear - Symbolic Vote Man is here!

To save the daaaaaaaayyyy.....

[defendandprotect]

54. We are being given candidates the elites want us to have . . .

and voting computers which are hackable -- see 2000 and 2004 --

and I'd suggest to you that we could question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey!

[AnArmyVeteran]

78. No victimization, no drama, no helplessness, just misunderstanding...

Do you really believe representatives are representing 'you' or those who paid for their offices? Are you aware it takes a lot of money just to win any election? Are you aware by candidates having to whore themselves out to the rich and corporations makes them more apt to represent 'you' or the rich and corporations?

I didn't say all elected officials are 'bad' in my OP. I specifically said there are good elected officials. You must have missed that point, as well as a great deal of the rest of what I wrote. It would be nice if people knew how to brainstorm to change a broken system. And if you've ever 'brainstormed' with a group of people you know one of the first rules is you don't attack other people's ideas, you add your own to create or change something. And our system is broken and corrupt.

But it seems obvious you believe giving people the choice between Whore A and Whore B, both owned by the same people is a great system.

[MrScorpio]

10. The Brewster's Millions Option, eh?

A win for NOTA would force everyone to field better candidates after the initial set is rejected.

[Dank Nugs]

20. Who you gonna call? Ron Paul! *ducks*

I absolutely concur. Reminder that The People still have given their consent to be governed, which can be withdrawn should that Government become tyrannical.

[Dank Nugs]

22. Seriously though, let's face it. Our votes don't mean shit unless you're wealthy enough. nt

[KonaKane]

23. Really? I've never been required to state my income to register to vote.

Have you?

[Dank Nugs]

24. Let me rephrase.

Our votes are nothing more than symbolic, meaningless gestures. The system is gamed six ways from Sunday. The only way any one will be able to push through meaningful reform is if they are wealthy and influential enough to become elected into office, where you actually have some power to do something. Or, alternatively, at gunpoint.

Our system of Government is laughably broken, corrupt and dysfunctional beyond repair. Too many politicians act in their own self interest, do not represent the interests of their constituents. They're not going to vote against their self-interest, they depend on that corporate money to get elected.

This is a nation of men, not laws. We are living under a tyrannical government and have been for quite some time.

Even if we were to organize a massive sitdown in front of the capitol with 30% of the US population, the media would somehow find a way to cover Lohan's latest drinking binge instead of that. It's depressing.

[KonaKane]

25. Allow me to rephrase. You are wrong.

While election fraud sure can happen, to simply dismiss it all as broken is completely off the mark. Have you ever worked an election? Canvassed for a party? Help get people to voting stations and seen the process in action? Voting works, for the most part. When it doesnt its because of human error or an attempt at corruption. But it is not a regular occurrence, I assure you.

I submit you have been reading too many conspiracy sites.

[Dank Nugs]

28. Yes, I campagined my ass off for Obama in the 2008 election, slept on many different couches, etc

So yeah, maybe I'm a little you know.. let down. He railed against warrantless wiretapping, he spoke of returning the country to the rule of law, not men. He's escalated the conflict over in the middle east where a few of my family members are currently deployed. You know, so I have a bitter taste in my mouth. With all due respect, fuck Obama. Biden's cool.

Are you SURE it's not a regular occurrence? Florida in 2000, the voting irregularities in Ohio in the 2004 election, etc. But I'm only 27, so what do I know?

[KonaKane]

33. You helped get Obama elected, and you say elections dont work?

What exactly are you smoking?

[Dank Nugs]

36. We were hoodwinked. People wanted change, and Obama just said what he had to say to get elected.

Obama uses the Constitution as toilet paper, he's just a little less obvious about it than Bush. Not to mention he has a certain kind of.. je ne sais quoi when it comes to delivering speeches. I don't trust him, not any more.

[KonaKane]

37. Have you bothered to look at Obama's accomplishments vs his disappointments?

I'll bet you havent. And you also didn't answer my question. To repeat, why do you say elections dont work when they certainly did for Obama?

[Dank Nugs]

38. I'm speaking from a position of bias but the warrantless wiretapping and errosion of rights..

was a really HUGE issue for me. I'm just extremely disappointed in his total 180 on his positions after he clinched the nomination and won the Presidency. I'm really disappointed in his expansion of the unitary executive powers and continuation of a lot of Bush's policies. Not to mention that he's got the DOJ aggressively going after whistleblowers, which is yet another 180.

He spoke pretty passionately against these things and I believed him.

That aside, most of his policy accomplishments are pretty impressive considering the opposition he's been facing this past year and half. I was amazed when healthcare actually passed. Sure, there's no public option but it's a step in the right direction and it sets precedent for future Government interest in this particular area down the line. He's done some good. But in my opinion, the expansion of executive powers, extrajudicial killing, slow erosion of civil liberties are worse and has some serious long-term consequences. I'm 27. I'll be around to see it.

[KonaKane]

40. I hear you, i have my complaints about him too. But I'm talking about the overall picture

He has delivered so far on about 119 of his campaign promises, broken something like 19, and several more are stalled or in the works. As far as presidents go (in my recollection, I'm 50) that's pretty damn good especially in a horrendous clean up era like this one and the horrible state the republicans left us in.

I'm just calling for a little perspective and an end to tunnel vision.

[defendandprotect]

35. I think we can question . . .

all of the elections back to Nixon/Humphrey --

The large computers used by MSM and the individual voting machines began to come in

during the mid-and-late 1960's --

just about the time that America was passing the Voting Rights Act --


MSM up until then could only report on actual vote tallies --

yeah, they could get a few people together and discuss trends and stuff -- but that's all.

The large computers gave them new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections -- PREDICT and CALL

Electoral College votes and name the new PRESIDENT! We saw that power reversed in 2000 as

they recalled Florida from Gore.


There's an interesting book called VOTESCAM - "The Stealing of America" --

There's a website on it where the book used to be available to read there --

it's in paperback and you can find it for $3 generally. May also be at your library.

Two Florida journalists in the late 1960's became suspicious of the computer voting and

the many questionable results and began to investigate.

They also passed their findings onto the National Democratic Party --

Some suggest that Watergate may have had something to do with tracking that info --

the book was shipped and taken off shelves immediately.

VOTESCAM ...
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm



As William L. Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, put it in speaking of the excesses of the Nixon administration, "We could become the first country to go fascist through free elections."

[defendandprotect]

29. Unfortunately computer voting is . . .

largely a conspiracy --

the machines are hackable as has endlessly been proven --

Germany has declared them "unConstitutitonal" and barred them because they

are hackable.

Evidently, Democratic Party -- according to Hartmann -- are unwilling to even discuss

the issue because they FEAR that if Democrats begin to think that elections are corrupt

then Democrats won't come out to vote!

Evidently, they don't consider the reverse reality!!

Unfortunately 2000 was stolen -- and probably 2004 -- and that's not conspiracy theory!

[Dr.Phool]

39. I was on the Florida Voting Machine Task Force in 2003.

We took our findings to Sen. Bob Graham, and he introduced legislation to correct it, but Repukes let it die in committee.

We took the same findings to the Florida Democratic Chairperson. Since Florida was pretty much ground zero for election theft, you would have thought that she would want to try to do something about it. She ignored it. Didn't even want to hear it.

Then, all of a sudden, 4 years later, she thought there might be a problem when 18,000 votes disappeared in a close congressional race, where Vern Buchanan beat that other repuke retread, Christine Jennings.

Now, she's back to stuck on stupid again.

[defendandprotect]

58. Well . . . do you remember Theresa La Pore and the "butterfly ballot" . . .???

She was a Democrat -- it was an ILLEGAL ballot officially --

later she was connected to Republicans --


I think we're always underestimating the right wing --

but these are the same people who have given us 50+ years of overt political

violence -- which is the only way they can rise -- so don't underestimate them!

Maybe she's not "stupid."

:)

[AnArmyVeteran]

82. Absolutely right. It's sad so many people in this thread went off on tangents.

Instead of addressing the problem. There is a lot of attacking the messenger without considering the merits of any ideas. There's nothing 'progressive' about loving the status quo of corruption. I wish other people would learn how to brainstorm.

[defendandprotect]

30. Even Absentee Ballots are now being counted by computer ....

we need to return to paper/pen and hand counting!

[Dr.Phool]

41. Exactly. I got mine today for next months primary.

They all go through an optical scan, where we've found multiple problems. Just not as obvious as the touchscreens.

[defendandprotect]

48. I don't know if you're familiar with this long ago investigation . . .

of computer voting --

Two journalists in late 1960's in Florida became suspicious of the very odd

results popping up --

They turned their info over to the Democratic National Committee --

Their book was published and shipped -- and then immediately taken off the shelves.

The family keeps the website going and the book available to read there --

It can be bought in paperback for like $3 if you can find it --


VOTESCAM -- "The Stealing of America" --

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[Skip Intro]

26. How does "none of the above" fill a House or Senate seat?

[KonaKane]

34. Hey, it fills someone's ego and makes for a nifty symbolic act.

And that's about it.

[Dr.Phool]

43. Actually, it's a better choice than what I've got on the ballot now.

A mentally challenged Republican, and an ethically challenged Blue Dog and DLCer.

Remember, a vote for the lesser of 2 evils is still a vote for evil.

[KonaKane]

46. Which leaves you with nothing really, Good luck with that.

Oh how wonderful if we could all just write in our perfect candidate, and have them win, huh?

[spoony]

57. You're very threatened by voters stepping out of line for some reason. nt

[KonaKane]

60. Out of line and into what, exactly?

I'm just not one for empty symbolism these days. We need to keep hold of whatever power we can, to affect what change we can. Its not an either or situation. If you believe such empty gestures are going to gain you something, then good luck. I think they will give you the same feeling as pissing in your suit - a warm feeling all over that quickly turns into a terrible smell.

[AnArmyVeteran]

84. Okay how about this scenario?

How would you vote in this election:

Candidate A = Adolf Hitler
Candidate B = Josef Stalin
or
None of the Above???

There's NO ego involved and it's NOT a symbolic act. It's called making leaders accountable.

If you are forced to choose between two very flawed or corrupt candidates do you really believe the people should have no other choices? To eagerly vote for anyone put before you is irresponsible and definitely not good for our country. As citizens it is our responsibility to always try to make our system better and more responsive to the will of the people, not the wealthy or corporations (unless you prefer to be controlled, rather than have a system where people were controlling the system).

[KonaKane]

88. Sir, unless you can align any current candidate with either of those two tyrants,

your scenario is little more than hyperbolic hysteria based on fantasy. Come on AAV, I've seen you do a LOT better than this....

[AnArmyVeteran]

91. It's okay if you don't want to answer but my question is valid and pertinent.

I could use a lot of real life examples like liar-verses-gangster, crook-versus-corporate whore, etc... The point is, and you're trying to avoid it, is we only get to vote for candidates given to us by those with deep pockets. That system is corrupt and until WE fix it we will continue to be ignored by those in power. I believe in system where people are representated, not one where only the powerful, the rich and corporations have representation.

NOTA is a valid way to stack the political deck more in OUR favor instead of the wealthy. I can't understand anyone supporting the status quo of money tainted elections. I've proposed other ideas too, like having publicly financed elections, preventing anyone from donating to any candidate they can't vote for and forcing networks to air all debates during primetime television. They are the peoples' airwaves. not the corporations.

If we continue to do nothing our country is doomed. I don't think anyone read my entire OP or they would easily understand what I said. Instead people are just picking one word or one phrase and commenting on it, some even going on extreme tangents. The bottom line is we will not remain a free people as long as more and more money is allowed to corrupt virtually every election. I am tired of being forced to choose between whore #1 and whore #2. Sadly, a highly qualified, intelligent and honest person who refuses to sell out to get the millions needed to win an election will rarely, if ever, get elected.

[Spike from MN]

93. You left out one bit of info in your scenario.

Which one has the (D) behind his name and which one has the (R)? Without knowing that, how the heck do you expect me to pick between those two? After all, voting NOTA would be just wrong. That would mean the other team would win?!?

[AnArmyVeteran]

104. Does it matter if both candidates are corrupt?

Say you have candidate A and he is completely corrupt and a republican. And you have candidate B who is also completely corrupt and supposedly a democrat. Would you just hold your nose and vote for the democratic candidate instead of wanting to throw both candidates out and voting for none of the above?

The longing by many to stick with the status quo is troubling. I don't understand anyone who would deliberately vote for a horrible candidate, just because of whether they have an R or a D after their names. The reason why people have less and less power or control over their government is because the two major parties KNOW they automatically have a certainly amount of the voters in their pocket. They only way to strike fear into them and to FORCE them to represent us is to send them a message that they can no longer take people for granted.

And contrary to a lot of the posters in this thread, by voting for NOTA would not be giving the republicans an advantage. People on the other side would have equally strong concerns with their candidates and they would be voting for NOTA too. In my basic plan I even devised a way to pay for the additional elections by forcing the wealthiest donors to campaigns to pay for them. Eventually, even their money would run out and they wouldn't be supporting candidates who would make better representatives for the people.

There is absolutely ZERO merit to those claiming a NOTA vote would give republicans wins at the polls, absolutely NO merit at all. And I noticed how no one explained how they could achieve that. Perhaps they didn't read my OP completely because under a NOTA system BOTH parties would have to go through the same process.

NOTA isn't 'wrong'. Voting the same way and expecting different results is what's wrong and it is also dangerous to our future as a country. Since big money controls who we are forced to vote for a NOTA system would eventually circumvent their ownership of candidates.

I'd like to see candidates who are responsive to the people for a change instead of their current masters, the rich and corporations. Face it, our system is broken and we need to come up with a lot of different ideas to change it so we the people can take our country back and have TRUE representation.

Finally, all seriousness aside, I know one enterprising candidate would turn his name into Nathaniel Odis Thomas Andrews and call himself 'NOTA' for short, He could then win any election he wanted :).

[defendandprotect]

27. Hartmann was recently interesting on the Citizens United case a week or so ago...

evidently they have brought a limited case --

and Supreme Court -- ah, those radical activists! -- expanded it to do

all the damage they could!

[hfojvt]

31. How about voting in a primary?

Where I live we have 5 Democrats running for the US Senate and three running for Congress. Before it becomes a none of the above in the fall, why not work for a candidate in the primary?

[Dr.Phool]

45. A lot depends on qualifying in your state.

A lot of good candidates can't get on the ballot in Florida, because they intentionally made it difficult for people to get on the ballot.

I speak from experience. I've managed a couple of campaigns down here, and won two primaries over the establishment choice, with less money.

A write-in ballot gets tossed down here unless the write-in candidate files and qualifies for the November election in April. I guess they were afraid Mickey Mouse was going to win the Governors seat.

[G_j]

32. it's a great idea, gives the people more of a voice nt

[scheming daemons]

65. The end result of this is that the only people with more of a voice are the GOP

[G_j]

73. so you would limit people's choices for political considerations?

and why do you think it would help the GOP? It sounds like an option tea baggers might go for.

[Q3JR4]

42. No, no, there was a guy who tried that once,

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/says-change-Bristol-candidate/article-1979014-detail/article.html">See?

Q3JR4.

[Rex]

44. No you cannot do that, because it goes against the ruling elites

ways of doing things! :sarcasm: We 'little people' must accept the fact that Democracy is made by rich people deciding on which millionaire you get to vote for! Lucky you!

[KonaKane]

47. The ruling elite loves to watch you throw away your vote on symbolism.

Because they know that translates into a victory for them. If you really want to piss of the ruling elite, organize and get someone elected who they don't like.

[G_j]

74. nice, offering the American people more choice is bad for the Dems

what is wrong with this picture?

[KonaKane]

89. What choice?

NOTA is not a choice. It's a fantasy laden copout and exercise in ridiculous symbolism. I prefer to keep the Dems in power and the GOP out, because that is still the scenario that best enables what we want to accomplish.

How about you?

[defendandprotect]

49. And, btw . . . it's an idea that's been around for like 40 or more years!!

That's how long we've been voting for the "best Vampire" -- !!

[KonaKane]

51. Yeah talk about cutting edge......

[defendandprotect]

55. How is doing the same thing over and again working for us -- ???

Voting for the "lesser of evils" . . . that's cutting edge?

While your posts are all fear based as to what the right wing will do you don't

seem to notice that that method continues to move the party to the right -- ???!!!



Or as it's being put currently ... "the best Vampire"?

[KonaKane]

56. I can tell you what symbolic nothingness will do for us.

And I'm sure you know what it is.

[defendandprotect]

59. Think you're taking things a little literally . . .

you and I know this isn't going to happen -- and certainly not any time soon if it did --

What's being expressed here is ABSOLUTE DISSATISFACTION with doing what we have always done --

and dissatisfaction with Obama --

Now that does strike FEAR in many a heart here -- but denying it isn't going to help the

party -- believe me!

We need another candidate in 2012 --

Give me anyone -- Michael Moore - Ed Schultz -- Whitehouse -- Grayson -- Feingold --

[KonaKane]

62. And I believe you are deluded if you think any of those folks has a snowballs chance in hell

running for the WH in a national election. Seriously, how long have you been watching American politics?

[defendandprotect]

90. I'd certainly be voting for them . . .

I've been watching politics long enough to know that we now have

fascism -- corporate fascism -- and a high degree of corruption of our elections --

Long enough to realize that the "leaders" we get to vote for are those TPB give us!

[KonaKane]

92. Well that's one....

Good luck with that landslide.

[defendandprotect]

99. Thank you --

when we follow our conscience, sometimes landslides can happen --

[dionysus]

95. ROFL

[Greyhound]

63. I like the idea, but I don't think it would work.

What I believe would happen is that the two parties would get together and only run one candidate in pissed off districts, so each candidate would only have to beat 'none of the above' by a single vote.

But I voted for it anyway.

[cali]

68. I will happily vote for Pat Leahy and Peter Welch in November

and in 2012 I'll happily vote for Welch and Bernie.

I'll happily vote for whoever the dem candidate for governor is; they're all good guys (and gals) they all support universal healthcare and closing VT Yankee.

I love my rep in the statehouse. In fact, I think highly of our legislature in general.

It's good to feel represented.

[Festivito]

71. Will NOT BE ALLOWED, as it would stop some vote stealing.

Vote stealing by the new optical vote-counting machines depends mostly on shaving votes by making the machine read a little off from the actual printed location of the oval one fills.

If there were a positive declaration of no vote, then the machine not catching the vote would be caught and the ballot would be returned to the voter inviting questions on why the ballot is not being read properly.

The current way is just to excuse the non-votes as people not voting.

[IOKIYAL]

72. How about Don't F*ck Over Americans To Spite Democrats?

[redqueen]

83. There's a novel idea. Except it's not only Americans...

the whole word suffers. Or... at least the parts the GOP will decide to invade next. Or cut aid to. Or... you get the idea.

[G_j]

86. ++

[Spike from MN]

94. Great OP.

"Face it, regular people all around you could do better jobs than most politicians. They have to work for a living. They have to be creative and frugal just to make ends meet. That's the kind of people we need in office. Rich people are mostly clueless about what a typical American has to face every day of their lives."

I have a co-worker that has always contended we need to do away with elections and just have people randomly selected for the positions instead, kind of like jury duty. He has thought this through and can go into a lot more detail than I have time for but suffice to say this isn't something he just pulled out of a hat. He's a very smart guy, politically aware and has put a lot of thought into it. Anyway, I thought I'd throw that it out there for discussion as I don't believe I've seen the idea suggested here before (though I could certainly be wrong on that).

[dionysus]

96. yay! let's not vote! that'll show em!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. I'm not shy about the write-in option on the ballot if the candidates listed are unacceptable.

[NNN0LHI]

100. Are you shy about giving us the election results of any of those write in candidates you voted for?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. Not at all. Che Guevarra got one vote in the 1994 congressional vote.

[NNN0LHI]

105. Che Guevara died 43 years ago and you voted for him in 1992?

I must be missing something here?

Don

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. I don't think he minded.

[Recursion]

102. This has been a libertarian hobby horse for years

IMO it's just a thinly-veiled attempt to delegitimize government. And our government delegitimizes itself just fine without our help already.

[Spazito]

103. All that means is fewer and fewer Americans get to choose who governs...

because it will be those who put an X or check mark against an actual candidate choosing who is in government.

"Our country is sinking and the rich and the powerful keep pouring more water on it. That has to change or our country is doomed."

Do you really think the "rich and the powerful" are going to be voting for NOTA or would they be voting for the candidate who promises unfettered capitalism if they are elected? Hmmmm, I suspect the latter as opposed to the former. Those who would vote NOTA would simply be throwing away their vote on an empty and useless gesture.