voters refuse to vite for anyone

[HinduWoman]

I fully sympathesize with them.

http://in.elections.yahoo.com/articles.html?feed=http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090425/818/tnl-1-473-voters-in-madhya-pradesh-rejec.html

A total of 1,473 voters in Madhya Pradesh trooped out of polling centres Thursday without voting because they did not find a suitable candidate to support, an official said Saturday.

The voters came to the polling booths, got their names registered and then left without voting for anyone in the Lok Sabha elections.

According to the State Election Commission, this was done under Section 49(0) of the Conduct of Election Rules.

The section allows a person to register his/her presence at the polling centre and then not vote for any candidate.

Such votes are recorded by the presiding officer and considered rejection of all candidates.

The highest number of such 'votes' were cast in the Khajuraho Lok Sabha constituency (712), which incidentally also recorded the lowest voting at 43.21 percent.

This was followed by 418 in Bhopal constituency, 189 in Chhindwara, 41 in Betul, 31 in Satna, 20 in Balaghat, 17 in Rewa, 15 in Vidisha, 14 in Shahdol, seven each in Jabalpur and Hoshangabad, four in Mandla and two in Sidhi.

Now if enough people do it political parties might actually start producing decent candidates

[Eudaimonist]

Now if enough people do it political parties might actually start producing decent candidates

I doubt it. That never worked in America.

Political parties don't care how many votes they get as long as they win.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[DMB]

Now if enough people do it political parties might actually start producing decent candidates

I doubt it. That never worked in America.

Political parties don't care how many votes they get as long as they win.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think this is right.

[DMB]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6169072.ece

A GOVERNMENT minister has placed a large bet with bookmakers at 66-1 on Labour not winning the next general election.

The minister, who asked not to be named, told friends earlier this month that he was set to win a “substantial” sum if Gordon Brown failed to secure an outright majority and was forced to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. There is nothing in the ministerial code of conduct that prevents ministers betting against their own party at elections.

Quite a good move, actually. Salvage something from the debacle. If, however the bet is just on a coalition with the Lib Dems, I don't think he has that good a chance.

[tjakey]

I am usually counted among the most liberal of liberal Dems; and I think I am about done voting. I don't know what the Democrats are (and what the Republicans say about them is complete idiocy) but they are not liberal or progressive. Wars go on, military spending is increased, Obama has become THE King of Corporate Welfare while his talk is of impending cuts in domestic spending. There is no gun control, no fair treatment of gays, no change in the tax codes, no real support for unions; fuck, if Obama wasn't black the right wing would love him.

Anyway, this country has gone completely off the rails and I am done voting for the "least objectionable." The difference between the "least objectionable" and "bat-shit crazy" just isn't enough anymore for there to be any real differences in policy.

[purple_kathryn]

Meh when stuck I vote for the lesser of the evils

There's usually someone who I really really don't want to win and I always vote.

[tjakey]

My problem purple, lately, is that I really, really don't want any of them to win.

[MrFungus420]

Meh when stuck I vote for the lesser of the evils

That's still voting for evil...

There's usually someone who I really really don't want to win and I always vote.

If I can't vote for someone, I won't vote.

If you have a choice between Tom crapping in your mouth and having Julie crapping in your mouth, and you dislike Julie less, which are you going to choose? Are you going to choose the lesser of those two evils, or are you going to not choose either option?

[hecaterin]

Meh when stuck I vote for the lesser of the evils

That's still voting for evil...

There's usually someone who I really really don't want to win and I always vote.

If I can't vote for someone, I won't vote.

If you have a choice between Tom crapping in your mouth and having Julie crapping in your mouth, and you dislike Julie less, which are you going to choose? Are you going to choose the lesser of those two evils, or are you going to not choose either option?But you can't actually choose "none". If you don't choose, you merely have to put up with the results of other people's choices.

I wish we did have a "none of them" option that would force a second election. That would be very cool. Failing that, our preferential system is one of the best systems around. You don't "waste" your vote on someone like Nader: if he fails the vote is transferred on to your second preference.

[MrFungus420]

Meh when stuck I vote for the lesser of the evils

That's still voting for evil...

There's usually someone who I really really don't want to win and I always vote.

If I can't vote for someone, I won't vote.

If you have a choice between Tom crapping in your mouth and having Julie crapping in your mouth, and you dislike Julie less, which are you going to choose? Are you going to choose the lesser of those two evils, or are you going to not choose either option?But you can't actually choose "none". If you don't choose, you merely have to put up with the results of other people's choices.

You have to do the same if you do not vote for the winner...

If there are two choices, and I choose neither, then I have chosen "none".

I wish we did have a "none of them" option that would force a second election. That would be very cool.

Agreed. I think that "None fo the above" should be a choice on every ballot. It NoTA wins, it forces a new election with entirely new candidates

Failing that, our preferential system is one of the best systems around. You don't "waste" your vote on someone like Nader: if he fails the vote is transferred on to your second preference.

Agreed. If you think that Nader is someone who you can vote for, then that is not a wasted vote.

A wasted vote is when you are not voting in support of a candidate. If the best that you can do is vote against the "lesser evil", THAT is wasting your vote.

And, what country are you in?

You can't be in the US if that is how your voting system works. There is nothing even vaguely resmbling a system whereby your vote gets transferred like that. As far as I know, the US electoral system doesn't even have a method by which you can make your second choice known.

[DMB]

What pisses me off is when people abstaining from voting are put down as "apathetic".

[purple_kathryn]

I don't think I'm ever going to be voting about someone crapping in my mouth but to use the analogy (no pun intended) -

regardless of whether or not you vote for it someone is going to crap in your mouth. You might as well try and vote for the person with the nicer shit

[tjakey]

On the other hand, what do you imagine the repercussions would be if, the morning after a national election, it turned out some massive number (say 80% or more) just REFUSED to vote for any of the assholes on the ballet? I know that someone would still win, but starting out with an approval rating of 20%, you don't think that would force some changes?

[Goodchild]

You want to know about voting? I'm here to tell you about voting.

Imagine you're locked in a huge uncerground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun. And you ain't allowed out until you all vote on what you're going to do tonight.

You like to put your feet up and watch "American Idol." They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns, and brand-new sexual organs that you did not know existed.

So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as your eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades.

That's voting. You're welcome.

--- Warren Ellis, Transmetropolitan

[tjakey]

Damn Good, sounds like way too much Tequila last night to me...

Besides, knowing America, most would vote to spend the night drooling in front of American Idol.

[premjan]

On the other hand, what do you imagine the repercussions would be if, the morning after a national election, it turned out some massive number (say 80% or more) just REFUSED to vote for any of the assholes on the ballet? I know that someone would still win, but starting out with an approval rating of 20%, you don't think that would force some changes?It could happen but it would require really unusual circumstances.

[purple_kathryn]

On the other hand, what do you imagine the repercussions would be if, the morning after a national election, it turned out some massive number (say 80% or more) just REFUSED to vote for any of the assholes on the ballet? I know that someone would still win, but starting out with an approval rating of 20%, you don't think that would force some changes?

But 80% aren't going to not vote because even if you don't like any of the political candidates they're always going to have a base of die hard supporters

[tjakey]

I know purple, which is why I wonder if the USA hasn't run the better part of its course. Maybe democracies simply aren't stable enough to last past a couple of hundred years? The nut cases run to the fringes, the rest get caught in the cross-fire and pick a side, and the whole thing implodes.