none of the above on the ballot

[Hates politicians]

According to voting results about half the eligible voters dont vote. Realistically they voted none of the above, but politicians refuse to put none of the above on the ballot because that would put the power into the peoples hands. When you put in a blank ballot they throw it in the garbage. Saying you have to elect one of them brings this to mind. If you owned a business and you hired a manager who then raped and pillaged your business, you then fired/voted them out, and hired/voted a new one in who did the same things, and you did this 3 times, ie 3 different political parties when they all came back to you and said hire us again because you need a new manager which one do you hire?

[PIK]

Basically they are to lazy to vote. 

[Anthony]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

Basically they are to lazy to vote. 

 

So instead you would rather them vote for someone that does not share their vision of the future, just because you would label them as too lazy to vote if they did not? 

I think it is better at minimum not to  vote if the representatives do not share their vision of the future, since once you vote, you are now responsible for your representatives actions.

 

20 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

According to voting results about half the eligible voters dont vote. Realistically they voted none of the above, but politicians refuse to put none of the above on the ballot because that would put the power into the peoples hands. When you put in a blank ballot they throw it in the garbage. Saying you have to elect one of them brings this to mind. If you owned a business and you hired a manager who then raped and pillaged your business, you then fired/voted them out, and hired/voted a new one in who did the same things, and you did this 3 times, ie 3 different political parties when they all came back to you and said hire us again because you need a new manager which one do you hire?

Sounds like there needs to be a veto vote on the ballet, which would at least indicate the amount of voters that disagreed with the available representatives at hand. But as you said "politicians refuse to put none of the above on the ballot because that would put the power into the peoples hands." How could one encourage such a veto system into the voting ballet?

[turningrite]

There were supposed to be candidates running for a party called 'None of the Above' (NOTA) in the recent Ontario election. I found a list of their candidates a couple months ago and it included one in my riding but for some reason this candidate wasn't on the ballot when I went to vote. So, I'm not sure what happened. I seem to recall, based on what I read several weeks ago, that the NOTA party actually does have a platform, which focuses on direct democracy. I think many would find this appealing. Why can't we be issued voter I.D. numbers and be permitted to vote online on specific matters a few times a year? (We fill out census and tax forms online, after all.) Would the people be any worse at choosing policies than are politicians?

[PIK]

3 hours ago, Anthony said:

 

So instead you would rather them vote for someone that does not share their vision of the future, just because you would label them as too lazy to vote if they did not? 

I think it is better at minimum not to  vote if the representatives do not share their vision of the future, since once you vote, you are now responsible for your representatives actions.

 

Sounds like there needs to be a veto vote on the ballet, which would at least indicate the amount of voters that disagreed with the available representatives at hand. But as you said "politicians refuse to put none of the above on the ballot because that would put the power into the peoples hands." How could one encourage such a veto system into the voting ballet?

WTF are you talking about. He was talking about low voter turnout and lazy is one reason. That is why libs would love to have it set up ,so all the lazy kids can vote liberal from thier parents basement and thier phones. And of course wanting to lower it to 16. My solution ,raise the age to 21. That way they may have some experience paying taxes and buying homse and not just voting because you want legal weed.

[Anthony]

3 hours ago, PIK said:

WTF are you talking about. He was talking about low voter turnout and lazy is one reason. That is why libs would love to have it set up ,so all the lazy kids can vote liberal from thier parents basement and thier phones. And of course wanting to lower it to 16. My solution ,raise the age to 21. That way they may have some experience paying taxes and buying homse and not just voting because you want legal weed.

So you have changed your statement to " lazy is one reason." instead of "Basically they are to lazy to vote. "  which is different in terms of numbers. (all vs some)

I agree some are lazy to vote. I am pointing out, what happens to those who do not support any of the representatives who do not share their vision of the future?  Do these voters have the option to show their lack of support for the choices at hand? 

On 6/21/2018 at 11:48 AM, Hates politicians said:

Realistically they voted none of the above

This is what I was talking about, maybe there should be a veto vote on the ballet so we can gather factual data on those that do not vote due to laziness vs those who do not support the available choices. 

I think all parties would love to have an online voting system since all parties could reach the "lazy kids" through advertising. 

Quote

My solution ,raise the age to 21. That way they may have some experience paying taxes and buying homse and not just voting because you want legal weed.

I think the issue is deeper, it is not so much that paying taxes or buying homes gives one have a solid foundation to make a logical choice in voting, instead it is an understanding of the world, economy, psychology, game theory, and basic critical thinking that gives one a solid foundation to make a logical choice in voting. 

But I would explore the possibility of both a raise and a cap to the voting ages, maybe on a different thread. 

[PIK]

On 6/22/2018 at 6:38 PM, Anthony said:

So you have changed your statement to " lazy is one reason." instead of "Basically they are to lazy to vote. "  which is different in terms of numbers. (all vs some)

I agree some are lazy to vote. I am pointing out, what happens to those who do not support any of the representatives who do not share their vision of the future?  Do these voters have the option to show their lack of support for the choices at hand? 

This is what I was talking about, maybe there should be a veto vote on the ballet so we can gather factual data on those that do not vote due to laziness vs those who do not support the available choices. 

I think all parties would love to have an online voting system since all parties could reach the "lazy kids" through advertising. 

I think the issue is deeper, it is not so much that paying taxes or buying homes gives one have a solid foundation to make a logical choice in voting, instead it is an understanding of the world, economy, psychology, game theory, and basic critical thinking that gives one a solid foundation to make a logical choice in voting. 

But I would explore the possibility of both a raise and a cap to the voting ages, maybe on a different thread. 

It was the pot and vigina vote that helped him big time. And very few even know what critical thinking is. But this time it might not be enough. He has pissed off so many with his identity politics and the constant gender equality and CC in everything he does.