Defending the Truth

Does anyone find this to be essential to have on a ballot? Isn't the "no show" option the same?

OD


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Maybe a congressional race was so nasty that a large number of voters simply didn't want to check the box next to either candidate.

That's what state Sen. Mike Bennett said he believes happened in the now-infamous District 13 congressional race.

Hoping to prevent a repeat, he persuaded the Senate Ethics and Elections committee to approve a bill, SB-494, on Monday that would require ballots to have the additional option of "I choose not to vote."

That option could not win a race, and the actual candidate with the highest number of votes would win the election.

Bennett, R-Bradenton, said the no-choice option would enable uninformed or disgusted voters to opt out in a way that clearly displays their intention to abstain for elections officials.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.


The Link

Well that's a dumb idea. It's easier just not to show up. People aren't gonna wait on line and go through the bureaucracy not to voice their opinions.

I think some peope feel the need to actually register their feelings.
Not showing up could be from a variety of causes...but to actually go and vote NONE OF THEM, which would have to be counted and published, is another matter.
We have wanted to do that in the U.K.

At the moment we only have the choice of not voting, or spoiling the paper (by voting for all of them).
This does not give a clear picture of how angry many people are with the choices.

If we ever are FORCED to vote (on threat of a fine if we do not....as I believe is the case in Australia????) then this futher option of NONE will definitely be needed.

INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING!!!

Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A vote for "none of the above" is a protest vote, and is different from abstaining altogether, which is probably due to ignorance or apathy

I agree, I just sit on my butt and eat cheetos then yell at the TV that the wrong person won lol

Yet a vote for none of the above would only allow the candidate with the most votes to still win. How is this a solution????? It is not, rather only a insane method of protest. It will do nothing to get you better candidates. Time and time people complain about their choices while sitting at home, yet do nothing to get out there and find a candidate who supports what they believe, and what they hold true. Instead of complaining so much, do something, anything. If you don't it is not the candidates fault but rather your own.

dmk

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. It's pretty good if you want to, but what I'm saying is that having a "None of the above" option on the ballot won't attract the people who weren't gonna vote in the first place. Most of them aren't undecided, simply apathetic. Or lazy. Or they can't get to the ballots.

I think the goal of this kind of thing is to show that some people care, but can't decide. I'm actually not to keen on any of the main candidates, so this would be a good way of showing it.

I also think this is a waste of a vote. Run off voting makes much more sense!

Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think if they make voting compulsary, Sphinx, then they should also make it compulsary to give us someone worth voting for ! LOL