How to vote AGAINST a candidate? (2004 US Prez related)

In My Humble Opinion
1

In 2004, how should I have cast my vote if I wanted to vote AGAINST Kerry, and NOT for Bush? Not vote at all? Write in any name? Pick an nth-party candidate?

2

If you primarily wanted to keep Kerry out, your strongest vote would be for Bush. If you wanted to send a message, your strongest vote would be for a candidate that symbolized your message. I don’t think votes for other than the two leading candidates are important in the numerical process, but they may be the most important votes for trying to change the way future candidates run.

3

The primary is the place to voice your opinion on the party’s candidate. The main election is the place to voice your opinion on the party itself. If you don’t like Kerry but you still prefer the Democratic party, vote for Kerry. If you really love Bush despite his party platform, vote Bush and hope for the best. If you genuinely think that the Green party has the best platform, vote Green (but be aware that unless you can convince several million other people that it’s a viable party, your chances of success are small).

4

You run yourself.

5

I have covered elections in my county for a few years and can only speak for that your area may be different. But I was surprised to see some numbers pop up at election headquarters that never got recorded in the paper. Those numbers were the number of people who DIDN’T vote for a certain candidate.

In other words, Candidate A received x number of votes, Candidate B received y and the number of voters who did not cast anything in this particular race was z.
I came to look at not casting a vote in a particular race as a way of voting “None of the above.”

6

You could become an ardent activist for the implementation of an instant runoff ballot system.

Any vote for someone other than the candidate is a vote against that candidate, but if you really want to see him or her defeated, your best bet is to vote for the opponent most likely to win.

7

I think this is better suited for IMHO than GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

8

You could move to Nevada and vote for “None of these Candidates”.

9

I like the part where it says, “no candidate has yet suffered the humiliation of being elected while losing to ‘none of these candidates’.” As for the OP, you can’t: a major flaw in the first-past-the-post system. Just think about it; if you didn’t want Kerry to win, who was the only other realistic choice?

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

10

I voted for Nader. My state was a foregone conclusion, and the actual number of votes cast actually matter to third-party candidates. I’d like to see a viable third party in the US, so it seemed like the way to go - not that I particularly liked Nader, I just wanted to support the concept.

11

What is the statistical difference in these different options? It seems like if I were to vote for somebody other than Kerry, and not Bush, then the ratio of Bush:Kerry votes would still be the same. For example:

  1. 5B:5K… I don’t vote, it’s still 5B:4K.
  2. 5B:5K… I vote Homer Simpson, it’s still 5B:4K.
  3. 5B:5K… I vote B, it’s 6B:5K, but I’ve still voted for B.
  4. 5B:5K… I vote against K (how?), I haven’t voted for B, and it’s 5B:4K.

Is there any difference between options 3 and 4? While these are small numbers, in a larger election, with multiple people voting this way, would the turnout be any different?

12

If I understand this correctly, the 5K part of “5B:5K” is based on your voting for K, which is why it changes to 5B:4K when you vote for someone other than K. If so, the second figure in #3 is wrong - it should be 6B:4K, and there’s a significant difference between #3 and the other options listed.

As your figures demonstrate, either not voting at all or voting for a minor (no chance to win) candidate has the effect of failing to support the undesired candidate, but not otherwise reducing his chance to win. To effectively vote against someone - i.e., actively decrease his chance of winning - you need to vote for the leading opponent.

13

Sorry, that should be:

  1. 5B:5K… I don’t vote, it’s still 5B:5K.
  2. 5B:5K… I vote Homer Simpson, it’s still 5B:5K.
14

Okay, then #'s 1, 2, & 4 result in a 5/5 ratio, and #3 results in a 6/5 ratio. The principle is unchanged - you need to vote for someone who can/will defeat the undesired candidate in order to effect his losing. So back to the OP, since you eliminated voting for Bush as an option, you might as well not vote. No vote for a candidate other than Bush would have had a chance to affect the outcome.