I've always advocated for a "no confidence" vote option.
If it gets the majority of votes, candidates currently running are all disqualified and replaced then a new election is held. This repeats until a candidate can beat nobody.
Enough of this lesser of two evils nonsense, we deserve at least 3 evils to pick from.
The next election has to come pretty briskly tho, and the "no majority" should creep downward some number of percentage points in each round. Otherwise you might get stuck in a local minimum.
You shouldn't have the threshold steadily creep downward as that just incentivizes drawing the process out by purposefully running terrible candidates until eventually the threshold is low enough not to matter.
Instead you should have the threshold vary randomly with the actual amount only announced very shortly before the election when there isn't time for anyone to change strategies in response. Eventually the threshold will be low enough that there will definitely be a winner, but you don't know when it's going to happen so you need to treat every race as potentially the real one.
I think the President should be replaced with an automatic veto so we can focus on the rest of the system without listening to what some bully is going to do to us.
> If it gets the majority of votes, candidates currently running are all disqualified and replaced then a new election is held. This repeats until a candidate can beat nobody.
Then either you create vacancies (which leave functions unable to be performed or being performed by someone not elected at all) or incumbents get extended terms, and either of these create strategic reasons to game the system to create and leverage the resulting dysfunction.
There are better election methods than the plurality and majority/runoff methods common in the US—lots of them!—but “majority with nuke the slate and start over as an option” is worse, not better.
Australia's implementation of ranked choice system is pretty great (terms and conditions apply; the wankers made it basically impossible for micro parties to exist cos they were mad the Motoring Enthusiast Party earned a seat. God forbid someone who isn't a generational career politician and who is actually a human person gets voted in!). The mandatory voting and actually facilitating that is pretty great, too. I think we've proven pretty well that you can get an extraordinary turnout and still have fascists voted in, so the US govt could just worry less about voter suppression, too.
Am I missing something? Every time I’ve voted I’ve been offered the option for a "write-in" vote if I’m dissatisfied with the other options on the ballot.
The names that have been nominated by major parties are just a convenience feature since tens of millions of people (for national offices) have already expressed that they prefer the nominated individuals. If you prefer someone else, you are free to write-in whomever you like.
If you read the election procedures/law, write-in votes are usually invalid unless they are for a qualified candidate—not just eligible for the office, but one who has fulfilled the filing and other procedural requirements for a write-in candidate (filing deadlines are often later and requirements otherwise lighter than for candidates seeking to have their name on the ballot.)
Besides which, I expect most people to vote for the least worst candidate just so their most worst is less likely to win. Or just leave it blank, which doesn't count against anyone.
This way instead gives them an explicit and easy choice that would be the same for every like-minded voter, that actually counts against the other candidates.
15 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 43.9 ms ] threadIf it gets the majority of votes, candidates currently running are all disqualified and replaced then a new election is held. This repeats until a candidate can beat nobody.
Enough of this lesser of two evils nonsense, we deserve at least 3 evils to pick from.
Instead you should have the threshold vary randomly with the actual amount only announced very shortly before the election when there isn't time for anyone to change strategies in response. Eventually the threshold will be low enough that there will definitely be a winner, but you don't know when it's going to happen so you need to treat every race as potentially the real one.
That only replaces the legislative and not the executive role of the President.
Then either you create vacancies (which leave functions unable to be performed or being performed by someone not elected at all) or incumbents get extended terms, and either of these create strategic reasons to game the system to create and leverage the resulting dysfunction.
There are better election methods than the plurality and majority/runoff methods common in the US—lots of them!—but “majority with nuke the slate and start over as an option” is worse, not better.
The people voted that the role should be vacant. They haven't authorized anyone to represent them yet. Leave it empty.
> There are better election methods than the plurality and majority/runoff methods common in the US—lots of them!
When people suggest these "better methods" those always seem to prefer their preferred candidate.
Can't say that about mine. All it does is raise the bar to the point where you have to provide somebody who is better than nobody.
The names that have been nominated by major parties are just a convenience feature since tens of millions of people (for national offices) have already expressed that they prefer the nominated individuals. If you prefer someone else, you are free to write-in whomever you like.
This way instead gives them an explicit and easy choice that would be the same for every like-minded voter, that actually counts against the other candidates.