Satan
Lv 7
Satan asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 6 months ago

Do you think democracy needs re-modelling? As it currently stands, it no longer works?

In the last election, there was just Trump and Clinton.

Neither was a good candidate. Neither should have been made president.

Would it not make perfect sense that instead of having to choose from just 2 bad candidates, a 3rd "No choice" is allowed?

This would allow the voters to choose a decent candidate, and if none are available, then the election is re-done with new candidates.

Currently, you either choose A or B, regardless of whether A or B are any good. If both A and B were found to eat babies*, you'll currently elect a baby eater. Under a reformed system, you'd have the opportunity to elect a non-baby eater

*No babies were consumed in the making of this question

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Tmess2
    Lv 7
    6 months ago
    Best answer

    1) Nevada has experimented with a "none-of-the-above" option, and it gets only a small percentage of votes. Implicitly most voters there understand that you are unlikely to get better candidates on the second round because the parties choose the person that the party thinks is their best candidate in the first round.

    2) If it did succeed, the reward for voting none of the above would be that your district would have no representative for four months while you re-did the election. Meanwhile, the rest of the government would continue on with the representatives from the states and districts that did pick a winner. Not a good recipe for having your voice heard. (For president, it is literally impossible for none-of-the above to win as the Constitution requires electors to vote for a person and have rules for picking a winner if no person gets a majority of the votes.)

    The problem with democracy isn't the candidates. As other people noted, there are other candidates out there -- for President, both in the primary and the general -- but it takes a little bit of effort for voters to get information on the candidates who are unable to raise $100 million (or write that check themselves). If voters are unwilling to put in that extra effort, it's pretty easy to figure where the blame lies.

  • 6 months ago

    Wait! What? Baby eaters? Do overs?

    You need to read more books.

  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    Democracy is fine, it's the stranglehold the two-party system has on US elections that's the problem. In a party-less system there'd be no point in voter suppression, in gerrymandering districts or in having the Supreme Court open the floodgates to dark money. The only problem with your idea is that no one but "bad candidates" wants to BE President. In future we may have to just recruit people and force them to serve (as anyone who affirmatively wants the job has to have a screw loose).

  • Jeff D
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    No one would vote for the none-of-the-above candidate (OK, a few would; about as many who vote for the Green party candidate or the Libertarian party candidate, but not enough to matter).

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Clive
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    There is nothing wrong with democracy. What you're talking about is the American way of implementing it. And there were far more than two candidates.

    It makes no sense whatsoever to have a "no choice" option. What does that achieve, apart from failing to elect anyone at all? What if you never elect anyone because they're all loonies? The rest of the world manages without this.

    Look, the two big parties both chose a candidate from a wide range, and if they both selected idiots, that tells you there's something wrong with the voters and party members who chose them. A country gets the leader it deserves.

  • Desire
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    Not true. There are many candidates to choose from on the ballot. Each party and their are many usually has a candidate. Haven't you ever voted before? You would have noticed all of the choices for President. Pay attention.

  • James
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    I disagree with your assumption that Clinton should not have been President. The voters picked her. Your no choice fantasy is the third party candidates that you seem to ignore in your analysis. Even in your fantasy, someone would win the popular vote. If no one won the electoral college, unlikely considering the winner take all allotment in 47 states, then the House of Representatives picks the POTUS according to the Constitution.

  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    in the last election there were over 40 candidates to chose from . the Ds and Rs suppress any media coverage of the others , but they were there .

    • Satan
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      Everyone knows that the 2 main parties can field a candidate. This is providing a workable 3rd option

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.