Who would you select?
A crook or a banditt?
Of course NONE of them.
This is what happens in the democratic world, specially in currupted countries. Why not introduce NEGATIVE VOTING. Where the voter has a choice to reject both of them. If the negative voters are more than positive voters, the election is discarded untill new candidates emerge on the scene. The territory goes under the direct rule of the governor,president or a neutral authority( not connected with any political party like the local social organisations, group of experienced and educated intelligencia etc.) but not to any particular candidate or political party.
I think, NEGATIVE VOTING can change many flaws connected with the democratic systems around the world, which make this system manupulative and proned to abuse.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Ahh! That "neutral" authority. Like, perhaps, the miltary? WATCH OUT!
Why not?
Take an example of Thailand.
Moreover, in many countries, you can still see monarchy( kings and queens)ruling under such circumstances. Why not them?
I have also mentioned the group of noble and learned people and popular and trustworthy social organisations.
We always talk about nagative or positive energy. What about neutral energy?
This is the most powerfull energy which always exists between the two.
Negative voting is a must under present scenario of politics around the world and I wish the US to start it first.
Learn thinking positive buddy.
Don't nag me about nagative energy without a realistic look at how military coups operate. If the Pentagon ever took over with a jerk like Rumsfeld in control you could kiss democracy goodbye.
Rather than a "neutral authority" I would expect the people already in power to stay until replaced. Of course, with the current administration, that could be bad. Negative voting might be nice, but I don't think it would be good to delay replacing the current administration when there time is up. Putting in an unelected interim administration would be totally undemocratic. In our current two party system, most people would automatically cast negative votes against the other party, while at least some people will vote negative against both. This would make it almost impossible to get anybody elected. The interim government could wind up being permanent.
Dwane, the concept of negative voting is < discarding both the candidates>. You can not <negative vote> against only one of them, in that case you will <positive vote> for the other instead.
It is only when both the candidates are jerks and you do not want any of them.
Secondly, I really wonder, why US has only two party system?
Why not a challanging third front too?
Naresh, thank you for the clarification, that makes a lot more sense. Casting a negative vote against both candidates would probably be throwing away your vote. Odds are, one candidate or the other will probably win. Most people would rather vote for the lesser of two evils than vote for nobody.
Lots of people, including me, would like to see a third party with enough power to be competitive. Unfortunately, the two existing parties don't want any more competition than they already have and have done a good job of blocking any third parties from becoming competitive.
Under my view that "all politicians are evil" I always vote for the lesser of two evils. In the City Council races here we typically have 7 or 8 people running for 5 positions. Usually 2 or 3 are what I consider competent. But 5 ARE going to be elected. "Lesser of two evil" works pretty good in this case.
The US actually has a multi-party system if you count the Libertarians, Socialist, Green, and any of the other focus groups that get on the ballot. And independent party candiate, Jesse Ventura, became governor of Minnesota a few years ago. The system works.
Dwane
If the total count of <negative votes> is higher than the total counted <positive votes>. The election is nullified.
This will mean, that majority of people of the society do not want these candidates.
Therefore, while counting, the first count is made in total i.e. "negative votes" against "positive votes" and in second stage, only if negative votes are lesser in number, the positive votes for each candidate will be counted.
The idea is:-
Use your power of VOTING and do not let it go waste by not bothering to appear on the poll station. If you do not like any of the candidates, let your vote show your disagreement or dis-satisfaction, of course in numbers.
Let them know, how many people of the society are not willing to accept these candidates as their leders or policy makers.
Now what happens is that they only tell you the total number of people appearing on poll stations. They only tell you the percentage of people who have utilised their voting power and those who have not. But they have not been in a position to tell WHY THESE PEOPLE DID NOT SHOW UP?
Now, with negative voting they will know why people in the past people did not bother to show up? The total percentage of casters will increase from 60 to 80 or higher and the adjoining category would be generally of people, who are not happy with the candidature.
Are you saying that there will be two separate votes? First, a round of "yes" or "no" votes for both candidates and then a separate vote for your prefered candidate? You can't do both at the same time or you would have the same problems I've already mentioned.
The vote is one but options have increased by +1. i.e. either you cast your vote in favour of your chosen candidate or <negate it> if you do not want any of the contestents.
Do not sit home and be invisible or remain an uncounted unhappy member of the society but go out and have your meaning by nagating these candidates.
At present we do not have this third option. Do we?
Dwane
Its only when the counting starts they will segregate the votes in +1 category which is <negative voters>
Good Christ! It's negate. At least get one thing right.
I guess this would be okay, but I don't think very many people are going to go to the polls just to vote against everybody. Some will no doubt, but it won't change the results any. I suppose it would give the cadidates a bit of a black eye if they get a lot of negative votes, but for the individual candidate a negative vote is better than a vote for the opposition.
It's no different than not voting. What's the point?
Dear Sonny,
Here's the mathematic.
Lets say there is a community of 500 who wish to choose their candidate.Only half of them appear on the poll and
Candidate A gets 100 votes in his favour, candidate B gets 150. Remember 250 have not voted. Therefore, B is a distinct winner. Agreed? This is what is happening now.
In my theory, there is another group of 250 Negative voters. Who have documented their opinion by voting against these candidates.In this case, none of them will win.Because the majority is against both of them.
This a very interesting idea, and one of the most novel ideas in voting theory (psephology) that I have heard in a long time. Just two words of caution:1. The mathematical behaviour of voting systems is surprisingly complex, and perverse effects can arise from unexpected directions. It will be necessary to thoroughly study the idea in order to determine exactly what effects it may have.2. Among that small group of people who are actually interested in psephology, there are already half a dozen systems being passionately promoted as the wonderful new voting system that will fix everything. All of them are passionately supported by their own adherents, and none of them have any traction at all among the public or governments. Your system will have to be very good indeed to have a chance of being used!