Here's an interesting thought from the McGrew household:
I owe the following idea to my husband, who handed it to me last night:
Negative votes.
The more you think about it, the better it sounds. Here's approximately how it would work. In presidential elections, you have one vote. You can make it positive for a given candidate or negative against a candidate. You can spend it, positively or negatively, only one time. The popular vote for states would still be counted only within a state, as it presently is, and electoral votes would still go to the electors for the winner of the state popular vote, winner take all, as they presently are. So your negative vote could not negate a vote from a different state.
That's all.
Mnnnnnhhhh. It's a charming option, elegant, too. And it certainly would be interesting in the current Presidential race...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
We actually have this in our church's constitution. The use there is that it is typical to have only 1 person running for a position i.e. Chairman. This allows a way to not elect that person if there was a reason to do so.
In our multiparty system where there are multiple folks to vote for I'm not sure it works as well. I suppose it would give some voice to folks who can't find anyone they are satisfied with. However, we have to put someone in the spot so focusin on an affirmation rather than a dissent seems like the right approach.
Sounds fun. Reminds me of a law school final I had: We received 1 point for every correct answer and lost 2 for incorrect answer.
A negative 2 or positive 1 would be even more fun. I'm guessing both candidates would wind up with negative scores.
Post a Comment