Would you vote if you loathed both candidates?

As midtermn elections loom (whee!), many of us will be faced with a choice between two candidates, neither of whom we think is particularly suited for the office they are aiming at. Given that all-too-sad likelihood, how would you express your dissatisfaction? Would you feel that you are obligated to vote for one clown or the other? Would you pitch your vote overboard in protest, and cast your ballot for the local Green Grass Party candidate? Or would you simply not vote?

I think this question is non-trivial, as a good argument could be made that if neither (no) candidate garners a certain number of votes, then the "winner" should not be deemed to have been elected, even if he did receive more votes than the other guy. Thus, a vote of "none of the above" would have more meaning than as simply a null action.

Quote: mkl654321

As midtermn elections loom (whee!), many of us will be faced with a choice between two candidates, neither of whom we think is particularly suited for the office they are aiming at. Given that all-too-sad likelihood, how would you express your dissatisfaction? Would you feel that you are obligated to vote for one clown or the other? Would you pitch your vote overboard in protest, and cast your ballot for the local Green Grass Party candidate? Or would you simply not vote?

I think this question is non-trivial, as a good argument could be made that if neither (no) candidate garners a certain number of votes, then the "winner" should not be deemed to have been elected, even if he did receive more votes than the other guy. Thus, a vote of "none of the above" would have more meaning than as simply a null action.

I've heard people suggest that the "None Of The Above" should have teeth; that if "None of These" won the plurality, the election would be held again in ~6 weeks with the previous candidates barred from running. The problem is the parties nominate the candidates for their ballot positions, so it would be near impossible (Constitutionally) to prevent a party from nominating their choice in that position a second time. There's no way the Supreme Court would hold that losing a previous election is enough reason to disqualify someone from running in a future election. (The notable exception I'm reminded of is the Gray Davis recall, but in that case the elections were simultaneous.)

In Nevada, None of These is an interesting protest voting option. It's placed highly in several elections, and I think it won a congressional race in the 70's. (I would check, but wikipedia won't load for me right now)

I think you're missing a voting option. If you're a partisan voter who hates the candidate from your party, I think it'd be a viable option to vote for him/her to benefit the party as a whole. Like, if you're a GOPer from DE, you could vote for O'Donnell even though she's kind of worthless. Or if you're a Dem from San Fran, you could vote for Pelosi even though she's unbelievably stupid.

I wouldn't express my dissatisfaction with my vote. I'd probably vote, in a general election, for the candidate of the party whose platform I agreed with most.

You absolutely have to plug your nose and pick the lesser of two evils in a competitive election sometimes. It is fine to make a statement vote for a third party or "none of the above" in non-competitive races, but here in Nevada many races are tight. In Maryland, which is not competitive at all, I had the liberty to vote my conscience more often.

Not to derail the thread, but one of these days I'm going to do a poll on whether it was fair for Gore voters to vilify the Nader voters of 2000 in Florida and New Hampshire. Don't answer here. Just start to think about it for when I feel like posting it. I've been writing too much about non-gambling stuff lately.

Quote: Wizard

You absolutely have to plug your nose and pick the lesser of two evils in a competitive election sometimes. It is fine to make a statement vote for a third party or "none of the above" in non-competitive races, but here in Nevada many races are tight. In Maryland, which is not competitive at all, I had the liberty to vote my conscience more often.

Why do you "absolutely have to"?

I think that voting for someone, not because you want him for the job, but because you want the other guy even less, is bound to have more significance in a close election, therefore such an election is the one occasion when you should be least inclined to do that. I'd hate to vote for Scumbag A, and see him beat out Scumbag B by one vote, and know that my refusal to simply gag, drop the ballot, and walk away had caused a scumbag to be elected.

If you don't vote for even the least desirable candidate, this enables the strongest special interests a stronger influence in the election.

"Special interests" = any organized groups which may or may not be working in the general public interest.

The special interests are ALWAYS there even if individual voters opt out. So, I say vote --influence the election as best as you can AND have a voice. And if you absolutely don't care, then don't.

Quote: rxwine

If you don't vote for even the least desirable candidate, this enables the strongest special interests a stronger influence in the election.

"Special interests" = any organized groups which may or may not be working in the general public interest.

It doesn't logically follow that my not voting increases the influence of "special interest groups". Since they weren't able to "influence" me to vote for one candidate or the other, their influence on me was nil anyway.

And for what it's worth, EVERYBODY is part of a "special interest group"--in fact, several such groups. I may be part of the group of chihuahua lovers, the group of the American Rutabaga Society, or the Left-Handed Albino Dentists Bowling League. I may be part of that group that only votes for candidates with handlebar mustaches. In any case, a special interest group doesn't vote--only the individuals that comprise it do. The group cannot have much influence over the decisions of the individuals that belong to it if those individuals were predisposed (as is very likely) to belong to that group anyway.

Easy--it happened in 2008 when I held my nose and voted for McCain because of what I knew Obama would do as POTUS. But the result may be worth it as the tea-party has made people realize conservatism is acceptable and given us more choice than a socialist democrat candidate or a RINO who might as well be a second (D) on the ticket.

I'll vote for the third party or independent candidate, but not "as protest", but because I think it is the right thing to do. I hate the "two-party" system, and think this is one piece of the US political system, that is the most akin to what they had in the Soviet Union. They had one party there, here we have two, but it is only quantitative difference, qualitatively, it is the same situation of forcibly and severely limited choice.
I'll vote for the third candidate, because, "if everybody did that", it would make our political system better.

I considered voting for McCain in 2008 though, because I did not want Obama to win so much ... but I still voted for Barr in the end (I think .... if he actually was on the ballot, I don't quite rememeber), because I thought that where I live, Obama was going to win anyhow, so it just did not matter to begin with.

1) I'd vote for the least of however many evils were running.

2) There are primaries where if no candidate gets a majority, then there's a runoff between the top two vote getters, thus ensuring a majority for the eventual winner. You could make an argument for implementing that in general elections, but I don't understand the practicality of what you are proposing about a candidate having to reach a certain threshold number of votes in order to win. What is the threshold based on? What are you saying, you just keep holding elections every so often until someone gets X votes? Talk about an incentive to buy votes with cash...

3) Not voting does not and should not count for anything.

4) People should not be exhorted to vote by goo-goos. The fewer lazy oblivious people who vote, the better.

1. If there's a candidate from a third party that I like, I'd vote for him/her regardless.
2. If there are two standard evils (random Dem & Rep) and I feel neutral on all the third party candidates, I'd vote for whoever I could pick as the lesser of the two evils.
3. If there are two exceptional evils that I could never bring myself to vote for either of them, say Pelosi and Gingrich (that should piss off everyone), I'd probably just write-in either myself or a local sports figure.

Quote: mkl654321

Why do you "absolutely have to"?

I think that voting for someone, not because you want him for the job, but because you want the other guy even less, is bound to have more significance in a close election, therefore such an election is the one occasion when you should be least inclined to do that. I'd hate to vote for Scumbag A, and see him beat out Scumbag B by one vote, and know that my refusal to simply gag, drop the ballot, and walk away had caused a scumbag to be elected.

By dropping the ballot and walking away, a scumbag still still gets elected, and it's the scumbag you dislike most. That is why you "absolutely have to" vote for the candidate (or party) you prefer in relation to the other, instead of not voting at all.

Quote: bcooper

1. If there's a candidate from a third party that I like, I'd vote for him/her regardless.
2. If there are two standard evils (random Dem & Rep) and I feel neutral on all the third party candidates, I'd vote for whoever I could pick as the lesser of the two evils.
3. If there are two exceptional evils that I could never bring myself to vote for either of them, say Pelosi and Gingrich (that should piss off everyone), I'd probably just write-in either myself or a local sports figure.

I'd pay $29.95 on pay-per-view if we could have an election between Pelosi and Gingrich, decided by tossing both of them into a cage, wearing only loincloths, and each armed with a pair of scissors.

Quote: mkl654321

I'd pay $29.95 on pay-per-view if we could have an election between Pelosi and Gingrich, decided by tossing both of them into a cage, wearing only loincloths, and each armed with a pair of scissors.

Can we fill a whole billet?

Start with Duffy Vs Lassa in a Lumberjack Match
Then Toomey Vs Sestak above an aquarium filled with sharks with freakin laser beams
Then Paul vs Conway in a last-man-standing windbagathon
Then Noem and Herseth-Sandlin fight in a vat of jello
Then Palin and Romney compare manicures in 2012 preview match
Then we get to your main event of Pelosi and Gingrich in a cage match with scissors.