Here’s an idea!

By Pixel. Filed in idea!  |   

     

Some people¹ have already proposed a ‘none of the above’ option when voting. Some² have proposed a tiered voting system which would work sort of like a caucus. I have a better idea!

How about voting against a person?

I mean, a lot of people do this anyway by voting for their opposition, but what if you could go into the voting booth and actually choose to vote against someone? It would count as a negative vote, presumably.

So if we take the 2004 election as an example:

• Michael Badnarik (Lib.)
• George Bush (Rep.)
• David Cobb (Green)
• John Kerry (Dem.)
• Ralph Nader (Ind.)
• Michael Peroutka (Const.)

Instead of going in and voting for your candidate, say Michael Peroutka, you could go in and vote against your least favorite candidate, say Michael Badnarik.

Then, when they tally up the votes, the person with the highest total of net votes would win.

In my example, of course, David Cobb would win because he had the most people vote for him (1) and the fewest people voting against him (100).

And really, wouldn’t it be a bit more honest?

(Prepare for another “I, Rule” post soon)

————

1. Libertarians[↩]
2. Third parties[↩]

This entry was posted on Saturday, 19 January, 2008 at 15:42 and is filed under idea!. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

6 Comments

1. 

   Comment by Um...Yum!:
   Saturday, January 19th 2008 at 18:56 | 

   I like the idea, especially if it means David Cobb would have been our president the last four years.
2. 

   Comment by Pixel:
   Saturday, January 19th 2008 at 20:02 | 

   *sigh*, can you imagine?

   I should have voted for him. Me and 50 million other people should have voted for him. Instead I voted for the other guy: Ralph Nader.

   My friends attacked me for it at the time. Saying that a vote for Nader was a vote for Peroutka, but I disagree. I think third parties are the only way to change the system.
3. 

   Comment by Lee:
   Saturday, January 19th 2008 at 22:46 | 

   I love this idea. Maybe the against vote could be done every year or so we could remove a complete lunatic if the against vote out weighs the vote’s/he got in the first place?

   I really like this simple idea….
4. 

   Comment by Deutlich:
   Sunday, January 20th 2008 at 7:45 | 

   I serioulsy freakin’ wish that were an option. I’m absolutely not looking forward to the elections at all.
5. 

   Comment by adelay:
   Monday, January 21st 2008 at 19:19 | 

   i agree. and i earnestly pray for the day that i may live in a pixelated democracy.
6. 

   Comment by Rob:
   Tuesday, January 22nd 2008 at 7:27 | 

   Could we have two votes? One for, and one against?