The Right to Vote Against Someone

[Blackadar]

Just a weird thought - why don't US citizens have the right to vote against (rather than for) someone? Is there anything in the US Constitution that prevents this?

In a two-party system, it doesn't really matter because a vote for someone is essentially against the other candidate. But with more than two parties, the right to vote against someone (a "-1" vote) would be a powerful tool. Instead of voting for the Green Party or Mickey Mouse (who I did write in on a local election contest), you could vote against Romney or Obama. This would create a much more dynamic voting process where a radical candidate who had a strong base still would not be able to win because people would vote against that candidate to the point of balancing out the "pro" votes.

Dunno, weird thoughts occur to me while I'm listening to people drone on while on an after-hours conference call.

[MIJB#19]

I've been wondering the same thing for the dozen-and-then-some-party democracy over here. Quite often I find myself wanting to vote against somebody/some party, at times more than I find myself in favor of one of the candidates.

[nol]

You know what America's political system needs? A way to make it even easier for someone to run on a completely vague campaign based on nothing other than attacking his/her opponent. Plus, the American people and our electoral system have clearly gotten too good at carrying out elections in which the votes are only counted in one direction; we're ready for the extra challenge!

[gstelmack]

I think America should go to a 50+1 system based on registered voters. If only 30% turn out, no one gets elected.

[hoosierdude]

Adding None of the Above to the ballot wouldn't hurt either.

[NobodyHere]

You could just not select a candidate.

[Desnudo]

Just a weird thought - why don't US citizens have the right to vote against (rather than for) someone? Is there anything in the US Constitution that prevents this?

In a two-party system, it doesn't really matter because a vote for someone is essentially against the other candidate. But with more than two parties, the right to vote against someone (a "-1" vote) would be a powerful tool. Instead of voting for the Green Party or Mickey Mouse (who I did write in on a local election contest), you could vote against Romney or Obama. This would create a much more dynamic voting process where a radical candidate who had a strong base still would not be able to win because people would vote against that candidate to the point of balancing out the "pro" votes.

Dunno, weird thoughts occur to me while I'm listening to people drone on while on an after-hours conference call.

Like reddit but real

[JPhillips]

This basically happens for some judicial elections. The candidate has to get 50%+1 to stay in office. If they don't a new election is held with different candidates.

[korme]

We would not have the current President if this were the case.

[larrymcg421]

We would not have the current President if this were the case.

Don't agree with this. While I agree that a sizable number of people would've decided to vote against Obama rather than vote for McCain or vote for Romney, this would've resulted in a mostly 1-1 tradeoff. Obama would end up with fewer votes, but so would McCain and Romney. There wouldn't be enough new voters to to make up the difference.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just a weird thought - why don't US citizens have the right to vote against (rather than for) someone? Is there anything in the US Constitution that prevents this?

Various state Const. deal with this sort of stuff (as I learned when doing some reading about different runoff systems a few months back, which turned into more reading about None Of The Above and how that's been dealt with state by state).

[nol]

Don't agree with this. While I agree that a sizable number of people would've decided to vote against Obama rather than vote for McCain or vote for Romney, this would've resulted in a mostly 1-1 tradeoff. Obama would end up with fewer votes, but so would McCain and Romney. There wouldn't be enough new voters to to make up the difference.

It definitely would have won the "popular" vote for a Republican candidate, but making a difference electoral-wise relies on there having been an much smaller overlap between those who voted for Romney and those who would've voted "negative Obama" than there actually are.

The only good thing is that it would've drastically upped the chances of some joke write-in candidate winning a state while everyone was fixated on either upvoting or downvoting Obama. That guy who poisoned Auburn's trees probably would have carried Alabama in 2012.

[Autumn]

Well this is in a sense the thinking behind instant runoff voting, where you order your votes for multiple candidates so that you can in a sense vote against somebody or at least vote for "everybody but"

[sterlingice]

I think America should go to a 50+1 system based on registered voters. If only 30% turn out, no one gets elected.

When was the last time 50% of the US turned out to vote for a candidate? Ever?

If no one gets elected, do you just leave the office vacated? There are still jobs that have to be done by elected officials.

SI

[Butter]

http://jasonpoblete.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/brewster2.jpg

[JonInMiddleGA]

When was the last time 50% of the US turned out to vote for a candidate? Ever?

Whether they were voting "for" or "against" isn't tracked but every Presidential election in history except one (1996) had a 50% or better turnout per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections).

[tarcone]

I wonder if there would be an election where a candidate wins with a lower negative number as opposed to a higher positive number. Something like Obama receives - 2,000,000 votes and McCain receives -1,900,000. And then throw in the previuosly mentioned Mickey Mouse votes. Mickey Mouse receives 10 votes and wins the election.
That would shake things up.

[stevew]

I guess I voted for Stein cause I couldn't vote against Romney and couldn't support Obama. The process we have is flawed but I don't think incorporating a vote against option would work. Maybe I could get behind "none of the above" if it required a 50% plus 1 vote majority to win an election. If nobody hits that mark all candidates are thrown out and a new election occurs. But it sure seems like runoff type candidates are a poor option generally.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If nobody hits that mark all candidates are thrown out and a new election occurs.

Which plays nicely, if unintentionally, into the hands of those of us who really wouldn't mind cutting the politician count by half & gridlocking things completely.

But it sure seems like runoff type candidates are a poor option generally.

Hrm. Not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Heck, lots of candidates suck but I don't think I've noticed any higher percentage of sucky candidates in races with runoffs (and I live in a runoff heavy state, must have 50%+1 to advance, none of this plurality crap)

[stevew]

I get what you're saying and largely agree. The gridlock would be insane.

I'm thinking largely in run-offs of like Arnold in California, a guy who would struggled to win normally. Or like after Heinz died and some fringe nobody named Harris Wofford won in PA. Or Scott Brown in Mass more recently.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Or like after Heinz died and some fringe nobody named Harris Wofford won in PA.

That wasn't a run-off, it was a head-to-head (vs Dick Thornburgh). Wofford was the handpicked Dem appointee to the seat, both nominees were chosen by party committees since the vacancy was deemed to have occurred too late for traditional primaries to be held.


United States Senate special election in Pennsylvania, 1991 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Pennsylvania,_1991)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Or Scott Brown in Mass more recently.

Brown wasn't a runoff winner either.

He pulled 51.83% of the votes in a three way race in 2010. (and 80+ percent in the two man primary)

[Young Drachma]

Just a weird thought - why don't US citizens have the right to vote against (rather than for) someone? Is there anything in the US Constitution that prevents this?

In a two-party system, it doesn't really matter because a vote for someone is essentially against the other candidate. But with more than two parties, the right to vote against someone (a "-1" vote) would be a powerful tool. Instead of voting for the Green Party or Mickey Mouse (who I did write in on a local election contest), you could vote against Romney or Obama. This would create a much more dynamic voting process where a radical candidate who had a strong base still would not be able to win because people would vote against that candidate to the point of balancing out the "pro" votes.

Dunno, weird thoughts occur to me while I'm listening to people drone on while on an after-hours conference call.
Because this is Murrica. You act like people are really informed enough to vote against anything?

Besides, then you could vote against that OBAMMA AND THEN YOU CAN RESTORE AMERICA.

But seriously? This is like asking "Why don't we have promotion and relegation?"

Because we don't. Murrica.

We barely vote in the elections we have. And no one likes paying for them. And we hold them on Tuesdays. And we repress the people who do vote.

Yeah...let's add more rules.

But that being said, I'm with you on letting minor parties matter more.

[larrymcg421]

It definitely would have won the "popular" vote for a Republican candidate, but making a difference electoral-wise relies on there having been an much smaller overlap between those who voted for Romney and those who would've voted "negative Obama" than there actually are.

The only good thing is that it would've drastically upped the chances of some joke write-in candidate winning a state while everyone was fixated on either upvoting or downvoting Obama. That guy who poisoned Auburn's trees probably would have carried Alabama in 2012.

It wouldn't have won the popular vote. Obama got 65 million to Romney's 60 million. If 10 million Romney voters instead decided to vote against Obama, the new tally is: Obama 55 million, Romney 50 million.

[sterlingice]

Whether they were voting "for" or "against" isn't tracked but every Presidential election in history except one (1996) had a 50% or better turnout per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections).

But considering we sit around 60% of the voting population, to get 50% of eligible voters to vote for a candidate, they would have to get about 85%

SI

[Noop]

I think you have a better shot at getting the Constitution amended to make it mandatory to have more than 5 political parties in every election.

Then again that won't happen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It wouldn't have won the popular vote. Obama got 65 million to Romney's 60 million. If 10 million Romney voters instead decided to vote against Obama, the new tally is: Obama 55 million, Romney 50 million.

I think the more likely scenario is that both lose a few to "against" but the tallies change because of people like me: who would have loved to vote against Obie but couldn't stomach voting for Maleable Mitt to do it.

IMO that would NOT have changed the outcome, only narrowed the margin by maybe a half million or so at most (I do not believe there were large numbers who sat that one out like I did)

[JonInMiddleGA]

But considering we sit around 60% of the voting population, to get 50% of eligible voters to vote for a candidate, they would have to get about 85%

SI

Oh hell, I didn't realize the plan was a legit 50% of the population (that got lost on me along the way). Not just no but hell no, nobody would ever get elected anywhere for anything.

[nol]

It wouldn't have won the popular vote. Obama got 65 million to Romney's 60 million. If 10 million Romney voters instead decided to vote against Obama, the new tally is: Obama 55 million, Romney 50 million.

It's not out of the question that there were 5 million people who hate Obama but abstained because Romney wasn't hardcore enough, and it's much easier to be against something than for it.

Under those rules, the Republicans could have just kept Romney in bubble wrap the entire election. No need to risk him going out and saying something that makes him sound out of touch when you can just energize your voter base to get out and negative vote. No need to do the whole dog and pony show where Mitt Romney has to do interviews where he pretends to like football and guns so he can connect with the South - just let him be as mysterious as possible so voters can project whatever they want onto him.