Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
If you need to ask, you can't afford it.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                               

anyone but______ voting option.

  (+12, -2)(+12, -2)
(+12, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

In canada. The conservatives have continued win election despite more people in our country being liberal and vocally complaining about our PM.

I believe the reason an conservatives tend to win is we have 2 liberal parties and 1 conservative so the liberal vote is divided and thus can't stand a chance.

I think one solution to thus problem would be for voters to have an anyone but___ voting option, in which case there vote would count as a negative vote against the person or party they despise.

bob, Oct 03 2014

Negative Vote Negative_20vote
Halfbaked fourteen years ago. Some fascinating annotations. [tatterdemalion, Oct 03 2014]

[link]






       [bob]. I like it, and I voted for it, but will you please get it out of other:general and into a category deserving of it? Thanks.
normzone, Oct 03 2014
  

       Yes, [other:general] with lack of caps in the title is someone else's trademarked MO.   

       I like the idea, though. Kind of like an anti-vote that annihilates an opposing vote.
the porpoise, Oct 03 2014
  

       In our last gubernatorial election Maine ended up with a self-serving Republican thug because a Democrat and three independants ran on very similar tickets. I'm all for this idea. [+]
Alterother, Oct 05 2014
  

       So wait… Why don't the two liberal parties unify for the common good? Seems to me that the real problem is that they're really all more interested in attaining power for themselves than any actual ideology or public benefit. Sounds like you're getting exactly the politicians you deserve.   

       Anyway, the “solution” is instant-runoff voting. [-]
ytk, Oct 06 2014
  

       I like it and what [normzone] said. Bun in a different category. (like the link of Negative Vote)
xandram, Oct 06 2014
  

       Another solution would be for the liberals to be a bit more conservative and agree in advance on one of two parties.   

       We did that in Bet Shemesh, and lost by only a few hundred dead people that voted for the ultra-orthodox party.
pashute, Oct 06 2014
  

       So two libs and a con walk into a bar. And the libs say serve us anything you like, but not what he's having.   

       The con says "beer me", so the libs got wine. And were mad they could buy ___( Fill in your favorite Canadian beer.)   

       ( IS this a sexist joke? Is it A joke? )
popbottle, Oct 08 2014
  

       Yes politics embodies the greatest struggles of mankind. I would never vote conservative, unless looking as if the mass uses ideologues in a mechanistic way, especially since the current prime minister has been working against liberal progresses, and strengthening ties to monarchy etc. but most worrying is his antisociology. Of course it is not likely nietzschean, his against christian morality, and positivism for example of the social darwinists. The prime minister's position comes in the wake of neoliberal 'socio-denialists', a worrying trend.
rcarty, Oct 08 2014
  

       I don't think this really solve the problem with three major parties with two being similar. Lets say that the voters are 40% conservative and 60% liberal with a close race between the two liberal parties. Without the negative vote, the results are 40%, 30% and 30%. In order for a liberal to win using negative votes, more than one third of the liberals (>20% of total voters) need to use their negative votes to get a result of (40%-20%), 20%, and 20%. If the conservative/liberal split is closer (say 46%, 27%, 27%), then 70% of liberals (38% of all voters) need to use negative votes.   

       But how do you decide whether to use your negative vote? Obviously there will be some liberals who don't really care too much which liberal is elected so they will use negative votes, but assuming that there are enough that care you'd almost have to look at preliminary polls then make an agreement between the two liberal candidates to tell their supporters that for this election, everyone with birthdays in a certain range should use their negative vote and the rest should vote for their preferred candidate. Of course then the conservatives might realize that if they lie in opinion polls to say they are liberal, then the liberals will allocate fewer votes to voting down conservatives, so at the actual election there won't be enough negative votes.   

       I'll vote against an idea that causes the best voting choice to be based on game theory. I agree with an instant runoff system.
scad mientist, Oct 08 2014
  

       In Australia they use the preference system where you label all of the candidates on the ballot paper in your order of preference. If there are 8 candidates, mark your favourite "1" your most hated "8" then the rest in between. No voting system can ever be perfect and this system allows some pretty wacky minor parties to get in as the majors hand out "how to vote" cards placing each other last and the weirdos come up the middle.
AusCan531, Oct 09 2014
  

       In Australia they use the preference system where you label all of the candidates on the ballot paper in your order of preference. If there are 8 candidates, mark your favourite "1" your most hated "8" then the rest in between. No voting system can ever be perfect and this system allows some pretty wacky minor parties to get in as the majors hand out "how to vote" cards placing each other last and the weirdos come up the middle.
AusCan531, Oct 09 2014
  

       I'm all for trying weirdos running the government. Look what's happened letting everybody else do it.   

       Speaking of weirdos, [bob] has not responded to requests to give this idea a category home.
normzone, Oct 09 2014
  

       I'm not. We already had Texans who made a good mess of things.
RayfordSteele, Oct 09 2014
  

       alternative vote (AV) does this better with multiple candidates.. I (think) that's just my name for what ytk / scad / & AusCan said   

       [edit]   

       also known as - transferable vote / (single seat) ranked choice voting (RCV) / preferential voting / instant-runoff voting (IRV)   

       would be my favourite system for MPs but not for the house of lords if we ever replaced it..   

       the 2nd house should function as a jury to say "yeah ok" or "hang on a bit we don't think that's a good idea" for any legislation the 1st house tries to pass   

       so I'd prefer some form of proportional representation for any replacement for the lords.. or even better, actually make it a jury, so if you decide on 100 seats in your new replacement lords you throw the names of every eligible registered voter into a (very big) hat give it a good shake & pull 25 random names out of it each year then have them serve a 4 year term   

       this way the lords is a random or supposedly representative sample of the population being used as a poll to say yes or no to any new legislation so the only way parliament should be allowed to push anything through without their say so should be with a referendum   

       you should maybe retain the law lords to provide legal advice to them but the rest of the old codgers can be thrown out   

       I'd like to see the PM decoupled from party seats as well with an entirely separate presidential style vote - I'd like to see AV used for that too
Skewed, Jun 13 2016
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle