| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 6:55:04 PM
i'll start voting on one condition: that my awesome new idea is implimented. it's called a nega-vote, and this is how it works. there are actually two versions i'm considering.
in the first system, the nega-vote is just what it sounds like. a sort of vote that negates other votes. that is to say, if you don't like a candidate, more than one candidate, or even all candidates, you simply cast a nega-vote for them, and it substracts 1 vote for that person from the popular vote total. but there are rules. firstly, you get 1 nega-vote for every candidate on ballot. secondly, you can only cast one nega-vote per candidate per year. and lastly, you must choose to either cast one normal vote or x amount of nega-votes per election. you can't go casting a shit ton of nega-votes and then turn around and vote for whatever clown you think would be good in office. that'd be like voting more than once, and that will likely piss off people who think voting matters. the electoral college doesn't get nega-votes. in fact, they don't get anything. we're going strictly popular vote here.
the result then, would be a more accurate representation of who voted for whom. suppose candidate x won the election, but he only got a couple of votes. he'd know that no one really likes him, but everyone just hated the other guy enough to actively not support him, or that he got the least number of nega-votes. so yeah, he'll be in whatever office he ran for, but he won't be under the impression that he's there because anyone wants him there.
the second system works a little different. in this system, the nega-vote does not have any influence on the actual vote count itself. instead, nega-votes are counted separately. the rules are a little different. just like before, you get as many nega-votes as there are candidates, and one normal vote. and just like before, you can cast only one nega-vote per candidate, per election. but unlike last time, you may cast both your vote and your nega-votes, since nega-votes in this instance do not effect the vote count. a new rule must be enacted, though, that states you cannot both cast your vote and a nega-vote for that same person. that's retarded.
in the second system, the normal votes are counted and officials elected. however, the nega-votes are counted up separately, and whoever has the most nega-votes becomes the anti-president, or anti-whatever position they ran for. i don't what exactly being in that un-office entails, but i bet it's pretty humiliating. i suggest the person with the most nega-votes for a given offices loses protection against slander and libel, as well as constitutional protection against privacy. that way we can say bad stuff about him in public forums and videotape him doing embarassing things. this will last as long as he is in un-office. |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 11:33:13 PM
Well I like it, in general, but I think that we should pretty much not have popular elections because democratic theory doesn't hold up in reality. People tend to not just get it wrong but completely backwards. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 2:46:22 PM
yeah. i couldn't figure out to work them into my idea, so i just said fuck 'em. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 12:02:09 PM
It's not a bad idea except I don't know if I'd do away with the electoral college. Did you consider just taking it away from a winner take all college to a proportional college, so that instead of winning a whole state of electoral college votes it would be split up? I think that candidates would get negative votes though.
Personally I think we should return to how presidents were elected constitutionally, minus the fact that women couldn't vote etc. So that way we can hold congress responsible for something and it would take the shift off the presidency and on to congress a little more. Of course that means that Pelosi could be president right now, but we all know democracy doesn't work anyway. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 12:48:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
i heard ostra-con was being held in new york this year. i think penny-arcade will have a booth set up.
I may be a history nerd, but you just made me feel a little better about myself...
Just kidding, but honestly, I should have known that one was coming. Well played sir. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 12:43:39 AM
i heard ostra-con was being held in new york this year. i think penny-arcade will have a booth set up. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 12:38:43 AM
I think I've mentioned this before, but oh well, I'm a history nerd and you are all stuck...
Under Athenian democracy two thousand and four hundred years ago, "Ostracisms" were held, originally as a way to prevent tyranny and dictatorships. All of the citizens would gather together at a meeting, and on an "ostrakon" (or "ostracon") everyone would write down the name of one citizen in Athens. It could be a famous politican, it could be an enemy, it could be a neighbor, it did not matter. All of the names were tallied and whomever received the most votes, was ostracised from Athens for period of ten years. That person only had ten days to settle affairs before they had to leave.
Three examples of individual ostraka, from the top down the votes were for Pericle, Cimon, and Aristides.
So, that's the system that's always interested me.
And oh, ostraka were small pieces of pottery that were broken up. |
| Robin |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 11:13:31 PM
I'm kind'a liking the nega-vote.Peace, Robin |
|
|
