The Trump thread: All things Donald

[joan1984]

I wonder having read Liz's comment, how is a "none of the above" or "no confidence" vote SCORED, that is, is it identical to "no vote at all" for purposes of counting in the contest between Candidates?

A vote, write in I presume, for Mickey Mouse, would count as a vote for Mickey Mouse, and be listed somewhere in the "others" group in a final audit of which Candidate "WON" an election.

A vote for, dare I say it, Hillary Clinton (or Joe Biden, or John Kerry, or Liz Warren, or whoever Dems decide to put on a ticket) would "count" as a vote for the Democrat Candidate. Same for a vote for Trump (or whoever Repubs decide to put on a ticket).

Would a "no confidence" vote change in any way the "count", or the % "count", as to being meaningful in the greater scheme of voter tally? In some Primary events, for instance, there are provisions for a Candidate to "win" a plurality, or a given percent of the vote, and with such accomplishment then to gain extra advantage as to allocation of delegates, etc...

In Countries where this is not uncommon, I wonder if it makes any difference than just tossing a dart, or writing in ones Mother In Law as the name.

I believe that voting should be mandatory, but the ballot should include a "none of the above" option.

Better Yet.....Like some European countries.
"No Confidence" option.....nothing speaks the cold hard truth like coming out straight forward and just saying "No Confidence" in any of the ballot choices.
It kinda puts you in your place really fast.

Love,
Liz

[Katiebee]

Again, Joan,you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. Vote of no confidence, or none of the above, would force completely new election with none of the standing candidates participating.

[Indian Babe]

PolSci is one of my majors and though a newbie here may I weigh in ... we've only today completed elections in our state and the majority are scum. Yet I'll never think of not voting because (a) it is the only measurable way for me to speak out and (b) it is both my right and duty as a member of a democratic society. I'm not in favour of mandating voting though.
As to the None Of The Above option - it was recently introduced here and I'm thoroughly in favour of it. While a vote to a nonexistent candidate or the "best of available losers"  option may look appealing a NOTA vote is immeasurably better. It provides us way to give candidates and parties a reality check. But for NOTA to become effective, election results must become invalid if the votes for NOTA tally more than either the ones for the candidate who comes first or the difference between the first and second placed ones.

[watcher1]

Again, Joan,you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. Vote of no confidence, or none of the above, would force completely new election with none of the standing candidates participating.

Or, the eventual winner may win with a small fraction of the total votes.

[Lois]

I figure that if we are all required to do Jury Duty, we can all be required to vote. 

If the NOTA option was to win, then I think there should be new elections, and the previous candidates disqualified from running again in that election.

What I really like about the NOTA option, is that it will then let us know if people are not voting because they don't like the candidates, or if they just don't take elections seriously.

[ChirpingGirl]

I figure that if we are all required to do Jury Duty, we can all be required to vote. 

If the NOTA option was to win, then I think there should be new elections, and the previous candidates disqualified from running again in that election.

What I really like about the NOTA option, is that it will then let us know if people are not voting because they don't like the candidates, or if they just don't take elections seriously.

Works for North Korea.

[Indian Babe]

We don't have jury trials here, but I agree with you Lois in that everybody must vote. However mandating voting might not be feasible here because of our population. More importantly I'm queasy about mandating anything.
Similarly that I'm not for disqualifying somebody from the electoral process. I mean if that candidate or his/her party is stupid (or determined) enough to run again convinced that the voters' minds can be changed, then fair play to them.
NOTA may not be effective in the short term, but that's how democracy functions in accretions. And yes if NOTA is in the first place after elections, then a new election must be held. Similarly, as I said earlier, if it proves to be so big as to be a determining factor in the end result.

[MissBarbara]

Better Yet.....Like some European countries.
"No Confidence" option.....nothing speaks the cold hard truth like coming out straight forward and just saying "No Confidence" in any of the ballot choices.
It kinda puts you in your place really fast.

Love,
Liz

I think you might be thinking of motions of no confidence, that are voted on by the legislature, not the public. At least, I've never heard of citizens having the ability to meaningfully vote for lack of confidence in all available options, and I can't see how it would be anything other than an exercise is wasting time in most European countries, where there are multiple parties and more opportunity to have specific viewpoints represented than in two-party systems.

Exactly.

Add to that, not only are the votes taken by elected members of a legislature, the subject of the vote is someone already in office, and not someone running for office.

To my mind, a write in vote for Spongebob or "None of the Above" (or "No Confidence") is worse than not voting at all. Someone voting in that manner is expressing a displeasure with a perceived cynicism in out political system, and doing so in a completely cynical way, thereby perpetuating the problem, rather than working to solve it.

And that -- working to solve problems and elect viable candidates, rather standing on the sidelines carping about them -- is a "cold hard truth" lost on many American voters these days...

[watcher1]

And that -- working to solve problems and elect viable candidates, rather standing on the sidelines carping about them -- is a "cold hard truth" lost on many American voters these days...

I totally agree.  Guess we are lucky that the number of write in votes are miniscule compared to the overall number of votes.

One thing that should be abolished is declaring what party you will be voting for in a primary. I understand the reason to have primaries but why should someone have to publically announce to an election judge what party (candidates) you will be voting for. Who you vote for should be private.
I am not sure if this is standard in all 50 states though.

[IdleBoast]

To my mind, a write in vote for Spongebob or "None of the Above" (or "No Confidence") is worse than not voting at all. Someone voting in that manner is expressing a displeasure with a perceived cynicism in out political system, and doing so in a completely cynical way, thereby perpetuating the problem, rather than working to solve it.

When I was at university, elections to student union bodies were done by proportional representation.  You voted for your favourite, second, third etc.

As part of that, every election included an option on the ballot to re-open nominations ("RON").  If you didn't like the available candidates, you could vote RON as any of your preferences.  If enough people voted for RON, the election had to be run again right from scratch.

(There was one election where only one candidate stood for a post, and some friends and I realised they were not up to the job, so we ran an election campaign for RON (every candidate got the same publicity budget, and RON counted as a candidate!).  Given this was the late eighties, guess who ended up on all the "Vote RON" posters?)

[Elizabeth]

Better Yet.....Like some European countries.
"No Confidence" option.....nothing speaks the cold hard truth like coming out straight forward and just saying "No Confidence" in any of the ballot choices.
It kinda puts you in your place really fast.

Love,
Liz

I think you might be thinking of motions of no confidence, that are voted on by the legislature, not the public. At least, I've never heard of citizens having the ability to meaningfully vote for lack of confidence in all available options, and I can't see how it would be anything other than an exercise is wasting time in most European countries, where there are multiple parties and more opportunity to have specific viewpoints represented than in two-party systems.

Exactly.

Add to that, not only are the votes taken by elected members of a legislature, the subject of the vote is someone already in office, and not someone running for office.

To my mind, a write in vote for Spongebob or "None of the Above" (or "No Confidence") is worse than not voting at all. Someone voting in that manner is expressing a displeasure with a perceived cynicism in out political system, and doing so in a completely cynical way, thereby perpetuating the problem, rather than working to solve it.

And that -- working to solve problems and elect viable candidates, rather standing on the sidelines carping about them -- is a "cold hard truth" lost on many American voters these days...

I'm not so sure.....What your are saying is that if given two terrible choices then you have to pick one (no matter the future consequences). I for one would much rather have a third option that like stated above makes the entire process start over with new candidates'  (and lets face it, this year would make a great test case for "a none of the above").

Love,
Liz

[RopeFiend]

Your vote.

None of these brain deficient wall street leg humping turn coat lying back stabbing spoiled fucks are getting mine.

That pretty well describes my take on this election, too.

Off-topic: Am I the only one calling him 'Donald Chump'?  Merely curious.  I've stumped several people at work, and they truly didn't know who I was talking about.  I had to draw 'em a picture...

[MissBarbara]

I'm not so sure.....What your are saying is that if given two terrible choices then you have to pick one (no matter the future consequences).

On the one hand, do you really think the choices in every election are "terrible"? On the other hand, yes, the way the electoral system in the U.S. works, you vote for one of the candidates listed on the ballot, or write in one of your own.

And yes, every time you vote, for whatever candidate and on whatever level, there always will be "future consequences" to that person's being elected.

I for one would much rather have a third option that like stated above makes the entire process start over with new candidates' (and lets face it, this year would make a great test case for "a none of the above").

Well, for starters, you'll need at least two Constitutional Amendments to even begin your process. And then, what happens next? How would you "make the entire process start over"? Redo all of the primaries and caucuses, hold new party conventions? What would happen when your "redo" occurs after the November election? Would the sitting president remain in office past January 20th so the "entire process can start over"? (And there's a third Constitutional Amendment needed.)

[Gina Marie]

Am I the only one calling him 'Donald Chump'?

[joan1984]

  So, Katiebee's statement of non-consequence being the only reply to date, no one knows the impact of a None Of The Above, or a Mickey Mouse write in, short of speculation about what if NOTA should happen to WIN.

  My question is rather, how does NOTA voting, or it's write in equivalent impact today's Presidential Election, and/or the 'down ballot' choices this November, if at all? Electoral College votes determine the Presidential Choice, with State by State rules affecting each State's allocation of such EC scoring. Some may be Winner Take All, others Proportional for instance, maybe others some other way of scoring as to who gets what Electoral College count.

  If a State is doing Winner Take All, then I suppose a NOTA is a vote against both major party candidates, as well as all other listed and write in players as well. Whichever Candidate takes the majority of votes in that state gets ALL it's allocated Electoral College votes... so, NO IMPACT for NOTA or Write Ins, unless the number is so high as to WIN that State, and thus taking off the table it's Electoral College vote count as to practical impact, giving such to a nonentity.

  To whatever degree of proportion that 'proportional' States' Electoral College votes are counted, all actual Candidates are affected only by the lesser pool for themselves and/or their main opponent. Perhaps an extraordinary number of NOTA type votes would 'award' Electoral Votes to this nonentity, and thus reduce the Electoral College vote count distributed to major Candidates? If so, with concerted efforts, the "Red State/Blue State" tables are affected, maybe not so consequentially as to make a change, or maybe so?

  Does anyone know? Katiebee even? Seems something Rope would know...

 

I wonder having read Liz's comment, how is a "none of the above" or "no confidence" vote SCORED, that is, is it identical to "no vote at all" for purposes of counting in the contest between Candidates?

A vote, write in I presume, for Mickey Mouse, would count as a vote for Mickey Mouse, and be listed somewhere in the "others" group in a final audit of which Candidate "WON" an election.

A vote for, dare I say it, Hillary Clinton (or Joe Biden, or John Kerry, or Liz Warren, or whoever Dems decide to put on a ticket) would "count" as a vote for the Democrat Candidate. Same for a vote for Trump (or whoever Repubs decide to put on a ticket).

Would a "no confidence" vote change in any way the "count", or the % "count", as to being meaningful in the greater scheme of voter tally? In some Primary events, for instance, there are provisions for a Candidate to "win" a plurality, or a given percent of the vote, and with such accomplishment then to gain extra advantage as to allocation of delegates, etc...

In Countries where this is not uncommon, I wonder if it makes any difference than just tossing a dart, or writing in ones Mother In Law as the name.

I believe that voting should be mandatory, but the ballot should include a "none of the above" option.

Better Yet.....Like some European countries.
"No Confidence" option.....nothing speaks the cold hard truth like coming out straight forward and just saying "No Confidence" in any of the ballot choices.
It kinda puts you in your place really fast.

Love,
Liz

[Lois]

No one knows.  It is a proposal, and has not been put into action. 

[IdleBoast]

Am I the only one calling him 'Donald Chump'?

I'm happy calling him "Trump" - it's a British term for passing gastrointestinal gases...

[joan1984]

LOL, Lois... right now, people vote for whoever they wish, including write ins, and that is where my question lies... usually not very organized, and so makes little difference in National elections, and I wondered, maybe not clearly, what happens in places where NOTA or similar "organized" voting exists, whether a ballot line provided, or write in names by voters... no worries, if none know.

No one knows.  It is a proposal, and has not been put into action. 

[Lois]

I think voting should be a requirement.  If voting is required, I don't think anyone should be required to vote for one of the offered candidates.  I also think that "none of the above" would act as a reality check for the political parties.

But I have no idea how that would work with regards to electoral votes.  It would probably have no impact at all, because electoral and popular votes are tallied separately in Presidential elections.

[watcher1]

I think voting should be a requirement.  If voting is required, I don't think anyone should be required to vote for one of the offered candidates.  I also think that "none of the above" would act as a reality check for the political parties.

But I have no idea how that would work with regards to electoral votes.  It would probably have no impact at all, because electoral and popular votes are tallied separately in Presidential elections.

Save money and just have the general election where voters elect the president. The electoral college's time has passed and so have caucuses.  Hold elections on the weekend as many countries do.