What if the party candidates are the problem…
My point is that eventually you will run out of Party candidates with party backing and end up with people who are perfectly qualified for public office but have no chance of winning against the established status quo.
How about addressing the points and questions I and others have brought up in this thread?
Why would anybody outside the party be interested? There’s no set qualifications anyway, usually other than age.
Why don’t we just call people randomly until someone says “OK, I’ll do it!”
That is not in any way even remotely assured. You are making dreamy dreams that after 2 or 3 discarded general elections all these great candidates will jump to the fore, ignoring just how many nutjobs will jump in.
The 1924 Democratic National Convention took a record 103 ballots to reach a compromise consensus. Their candidate (who you never heard of), lost to Calvin Coolidge.
So, is this this what you really want? The potential for 100 damn elections before someone finally crosses the finish line? If you’re really requiring 51% voter turnout, then you’d probably never actually elect a candidate, because even the most hardcore political junkie would give up long before that, even if voting was as easy as swiping left or right on your smart phone.
eh, my old proposal was to add “None of the above” to all ballots.
Everyone who got fewer votes than ‘none of the above’ would be barred by law from ever running for that office again.
Of course, this would require completely new rules for secondary elections in cases where there are no acceptable candidates.
You don’t want to vote for a Democrat or Repulican? That’s cool. No need to change the Constitution or anything. You already have plenty of choices.
Here are some other parties you’ll find on your ballot in November.
Constitution
Green
Libertarian
America’s Party
American Freedom
Better for America
Party of Socialism and Liberation
Peace and Freedom
Prohibition
Reform
Socialist
Socialist Equality
Socialist Workers
Veterans
Workers World
Plus at least eight independent presidential candidates who are officially on the ballot in at least one state.
Find a platform you like and work for that candidate.
Voter turnout was 54.9% in 2012.
So we’re already where the OP wants us to be.
I wonder if he even bothered to look.
I’d like to have a ‘none of the above’ option, but that doesn’t mean it’s practical. Why would the current candidates be prevented from running again? One of them may have received 49% of the votes and the rest split among multiple candidates, so why eliminate the one candidate who might be best able to gain 51% in a second election, and may be far better than anyone who hasn’t run so far.
The OP said that 51% of the voters have to vote, not that any one candidate has to get 51% of the vote.
If you can’t get 50% of the population to come to an election between Clinton and Trump, you really think that more than 50% will come to an election between Sanders and Cruz?
The thing that people like the OP and other 3rd party zealots don’t realize, is that even if no one is particularly happy with the choices they have before them, they aren’t likely to like any single other candidate better. Each individual dissatisfied voter has their own idea of what that good candidate should be, and assumes that all of the other disaffected voters want who they want. But in reality each of the disaffected is disaffected in their own unique way. So even though none of the above might win the election, that doesn’t mean that there is some candidate who will liked by more than the current set of choices. (particularly once the opposition smear machine gets through with them.)
Yeah it’s pretty rare for the turnout to be less than 51% so I was kind of wondering which elections this amendment would have “fixed”.
One of the principles of designing an iterated system is that you should make sure that it actually finishes at some point. This is awfully important when it comes to elections, because at some point someone has to actually be elected, or you either end up with a power vacuum, or whoever is currently in the office holding it indefinitely. Either result trends toward dictatorship.
Most of the opposition to the proposed system is pointing out that it doesn’t do that, and in fact probably has some feedback that pushes it in the other direction.
Think about the process of the primaries to the general election. The primaries can start with lots of candidates, which then get winnowed down to fewer, making it very likely that someone gets an actual majority. And if no one does, then there’s another decision process to actually elect someone.
But there’s a real chance that if we throw out the candidates at that point, we get less and less qualified and acceptable candidates on each successive election, and a less and less interested electorate. When you’re on the 7th election this year, why bother to vote? It’s going to accomplish nothing just like the last 6.
It’s unfortunate that our political process has resulted in such public dissatisfaction with candidates, but it’s really important to make sure that in reforming our admittedly problematic process, we don’t end up with one that’s actively dysfunctional. Most of us have never lived in a failed state. Let’s keep it that way.
I disagree. The apathetic shouldn’t count.
Well what if less than 50% of the voters don’t read the ballot correctly?
Ok, but my question remains, even with such a system why would the candidates be barred from running again? There are a lot of reasons, like simply bad weather, that would make the difference in crossing the 50% threshold.
Actually, most of those are unlikely to be on your ballot as I think only the Libertarian party regularly gets listed in all 50 states. Even the Greens haven’t even managed 30. Also, Better for America is not a political party at all.