But most of the candidates didn’t so alienate the populace. There’s no reason why Tom the Green should die just because Dick the Republican and Harry the Democrat suck.
This would be especially fun if write-in candidates are allowed - vote for somebody you don’t like!
Or you could just assume that if write-in candidates are allowed, that everyone is a candidate.
Funny, I’ve never in my life heard a libertarian say any of these things. Why do you have to start the thread with a straw man that contributes nothing to the question?
In any event, of course it’s a preposterous idea that seemed to have been raised by the OP to get in yet another shot at boogeyman “libertarians.”
You can’t NOT have elected officials. You might get by without the representative from the 14th district, but you can’t not have a governor or a President or a mayor; it’d be a constitutional crisis every time you held an election. If you think “it can’t be worse,” try constitutional, and inevitably civil, unrest, and you’ll soon find out just how much vastly worse it can get.
You have no idea how much elections cost taxpayers, do you?
Thanks, yes i do, but didn’t realize it when I typed it, the answer is ‘way too much’, so lets just decide on ‘none of the above’ for all offices and get rid of this system entirely.
Well, complete anarchy does have pretty low (government) taxes…
Although the idea appeals to me I agree it’s incredibly impractical. I think it needs to be done sooner and more average citizens need to e involved. If you don’t like the candidates your party is offering for the primaries make a big stink, make them offer someone else or get involved in finding and drafting a decent candidate.
I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about an Iraqi veteran who wanted to run for office and had a lot of Joe average support but the movers and shakers of his party in his state pressured him because they wanted someone else. That’s when joe average needs to stand up and get involved and throw the buns out. “We said we want this guy dam it” You have to start way before the election to find decent candidates and then support them. People get pissed at the government but rarely maintain the effort it takes to make any changes. Myself included …{hangs head}
I don’t follow (or attend) political primaries; do their ballots include the option for a write-in candidate? (I’m aware that it could vary depending on party and region; I’m curious about trends.)
The reason I was hanging my head was because I don’t either. When I registered as a Democrat a few years back I went to several gatherings. It became apparent to me that certain people intended to be in charge and steer the ship. I suppose I gave up to soon. I think it would require a bit of personal time and sacrifice even on a local level to make a difference.
I don’t know how it works for sure. I suppose people are nominated for the primaries. If none of the nominees are acceptable then say so and be prepared to offer a willing alternative. That would require some time, preparation, and foresight that a lot of people don’t have. You’d think parties would want a decent candidate but from what I’ve seen being offered ,in some areas they don’t. They want someone who what, owes them a favor, or something.
Golly … and Libertarians still have trouble convincing people they’d make good, serious public servants?!?
Calm down, Libertarians, I know you never suggested this. You just want to go hang out the corner dressed up as Lady Liberty and hand out the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. That’s cool.
Wouldn’t those that voted for someone be able to sue under this clause? Or would the success of NotA’s “campaign” imply consent?
Can we do this? Can we dothis? Please!!!1:D
Crap. My native perversity now demands I be for it.
Well, no, not the “leave it vacant” part. That’s just playing to those who want not to be governed.
No, there should be a “none of the above” option, within an Instant Runoff (or other proportional representation) framework, where “none of the above” has as much chance to win as anyone else. Then, if “none of the above” does win, there’s another election in two months’ time (an appointed placeholder serving any time necessary–US terms don’t start immediately anyway). If “none of the above” wins that one, we pick a citizen at random (bit like jury duty) & make him do it.
That’s what people said about W Bush.
cosmosdan raises a good point. This could actually work in primaries, where candidates are selected. Of course, I don’t see “none of the above” winning much of the time.
Oh, & how primaries work in my state is as follows. You can sign up with the party for a $100 filing fee (which ends up in your campaign fund; I think this is to weed out some of the no-hopers & pranksters)–in April I think. There are no write-ins in the primary.
For the general, you can register to be a write-in no later than two weeks before the election. I don’t think it costs anything, but you have to register. I don’t know if this is to make it clear, in case there are different persons with the same name, who is the candidate; or just another cockamamie restriction the parties created to shut down independents.
I’ll go with Clockwork slightly. The idea is good however if “none of the above” wins the parties (all) go back and select new candidates for a run-off/special election. I could live with that idea in general.
In Nevada, for as long as I can remember, we’ve had a “None of the Above” option, but the office is not left vacant. If None of the Above wins, the 2nd place candidate takes the office.
Note that on our ballots it is listed as “None of these candidates”.