New Rules for elections: If less than 1/2 turnout, then the uncast ballots go

[Freeper]

Another winning idea from the geniuses at DU.

CK_John (4,875 posts)

 
New Rules for elections: If less than 1/2 turnout, then the uncast ballots go to the LOWEST

candidate on each ballot line. Example 4 candidates run for dog catcher the one with the lowest count would get all unused (uncast)votes in each precinct..

The count of voters would be made public 30 days prior to the elections.

This of course would have more parties(candidates) running since you could win by default.

It would all give us the government we deserve and cleanup the voter rolls.

You snooze you lose.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002761442

 

This idea is so bad even  the DUmpmonkeys don't like it.

[thundley4]

How about this.  We take all citizens that are eligible to be president and put all their names into one big ass hat and draw out a name.  That person is president for the next four years.


Seriously, could they be any worse than Obama?

[Chris_]

Unbelievable that the ethos of wealth redistribution is so ingrained in their outlook they are willing to apply it in every case they can.  It's disgusting.

[Chris_]

LARED (11,317 posts)

3. How about a mandatory candidate on the bottom of each office named

"None of the above"

I like this.  It's certainly better than CK_John's stupid idea.

[Carl]

How can stupid like this actually survive?

[DumbAss Tanker]

It's hard to believe that anyone who has enough education to read and write actually wrote that.

[Kyle Ricky]

It is obvious the DUmmies came from a very liberal public school. There is no other way to explain their stupidity. I swear they graduated with a 6th grade academic level.

[NHSparky]

How can stupid like this actually survive?

Because for now, killing them remains illegal.

[I_B_Perky]

CK_John (4,875 posts)
 
New Rules for elections: If less than 1/2 turnout, then the uncast ballots go to the LOWEST

candidate on each ballot line. Example 4 candidates run for dog catcher the one with the lowest count would get all unused (uncast)votes in each precinct..

The count of voters would be made public 30 days prior to the elections.

This of course would have more parties(candidates) running since you could win by default.

It would all give us the government we deserve and cleanup the voter rolls.

You snooze you lose.

Now, now, now just wait a daggone minute here dummy. Ain't ya all for democracy? How is this democracy? If I don't like any of the candidates that are running you are proposing that you take my vote, or lack thereof, and give it to someone like the loser? And you damned idiots are all worried about people having to show id before they vote?

Let me express my opinion of your idea dummy and you in general.

Bugger off, you idiot!!!!

[Chris_]

The count of voters would be made public 30 days prior to the election.

How does this square with Democrats' same-day voter registration?

[Delmar]

They could send letters out naming the people in a neighborhood and whether they voted or not to shame them into voting. 

Oh, that's right, they already did that. 

I know, because I got one of those letters on Saturday from the Greater Wisconsin Political Fund.

After the June 5th election, public records will tell everyone who voted and who didn't.

Creepy, huh?

[obumazombie]

Unbelievable that the ethos of wealth redistribution is so ingrained in their outlook they are willing to apply it in every case they can.  It's disgusting.

They need a minority bake sale, where, if you are a minority, depending on which one is in most favor currently, you get a discount on all baked goods. Someone also came up with the idea of grade redistribution. Take grades from the best students and give them to the worst. The young libs always want to howl with that socialist principle being applied directly to them. But then liberalism is nothing unless it's  NIMBY.

[Kyle Ricky]

Now, now, now just wait a daggone minute here dummy. Ain't ya all for democracy? How is this democracy? If I don't like any of the candidates that are running you are proposing that you take my vote, or lack thereof, and give it to someone like the loser? And you damned idiots are all worried about people having to show id before they vote?

Let me express my opinion of your idea dummy and you in general.

Bugger off, you idiot!!!!

You know it just hit me. This could be a way for them to get Obama to win. Think about it. We have the general election and Obama gets the least amount of votes. Their for he get whatever is unaccounted for, thus making him the winner. Of course it would only work if the turn out was low enough. But this year, I think that might be the case.

[I_B_Perky]

They could send letters out naming the people in a neighborhood and whether they voted or not to shame them into voting. 

Oh, that's right, they already did that. 

I know, because I got one of those letters on Saturday from the Greater Wisconsin Political Fund.

Creepy, huh?

If I 'member my history... in the old days, if you wanted to vote, and were eligible, you had to show up the county court house, be recognized publicly, and state publicly who you voted for. Can't remember when the "Australian ballot" came about. Sometime in the mid 1800's.

[Kyle Ricky]

^^ I thought you had to be a land owner to vote in the mid to early 1800's?

Edit: I just looked it up and I am wrong

Here:

U.S. Voting Rights

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.
1790
    1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1800
1810
    1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1820
1840
    1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
    1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
1860
    1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
1880
    1889 Florida adopts a poll tax. Ten other southern states will implement poll taxes.
    1890 Mississippi adopts a literacy test to keep African Americans from voting. Numerous other states—not just in the south—also establish literacy tests. However, the tests also exclude many whites from voting. To get around this, states add grandfather clauses that allow those who could vote before 1870, or their descendants, to vote regardless of literacy or tax qualifications.
1900
1910
    1913 The 17th Amendment calls for members of the U.S. Senate to be elected directly by the people instead of State Legislatures.
    1915 Oklahoma was the last state to append a grandfather clause to its literacy requirement (1910). In Guinn v. United States the Supreme Court rules that the clause is in conflict with the 15th Amendment, thereby outlawing literacy tests for federal elections.
1920
    1920 The 19th Amendment guarantees women's suffrage.
    1924 Indian Citizenship Act grants all Native Americans the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in federal elections.
1930
1940
    1944 The Supreme Court outlaws "white primaries" in Smith v. Allwright (Texas). In Texas, and other states, primaries were conducted by private associations, which, by definion, could exclude whomever they chose. The Court declares the nomination process to be a public process bound by the terms of 15th Amendment.
1950
    1957 The first law to implement the 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, is passed. The Act set up the Civil Rights Commission—among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
1960
    1960 In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (Alabama) the Court outlaws "gerrymandering."
    1961 The 23rd Amendment allows voters of the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections.
    1964 The 24th Amendment bans the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections.
    1965 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., mounts a voter registration drive in Selma, Alabama, to draw national attention to African-American voting rights.
    1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
    1966 The Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, eliminates the poll tax as a qualification for voting in any election. A poll tax was still in use in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
    1966 The Court upholds the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
1970
    1970 Literacy requirements are banned for five years by the 1970 renewal of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, eighteen states still have a literacy requirement in place. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court upholds the ban on literacy tests, which is made permanent in 1975. Judge Hugo Black, writing the court's opinion, cited the "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of their race" as the reason for their decision.
    1971 The 26th amendment sets the minimum voting age at 18.
    1972 In Dunn v. Blumstein, the Supreme Court declares that lengthy residence requirements for voting in state and local elections is unconstitutional and suggests that 30 days is an ample period.
1980
1990
    1995 The Federal "Motor Voter Law" takes effect, making it easier to register to vote.
2000
    2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act requires states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures.

Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1wn3tBCFR

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Seriously, could they be any worse than Obama?

How many people post at DU?

[sybilll]

How many people post at DU?

If you subtract the moles from CC, I would estimate about 418.

[diesel driver]

How can stupid like this actually survive?

Affirmative Action,

 and warning labels.

[formerlurker]

dems_rightnow (1,673 posts)
2. In a world of dumb ideas..

View profile
... this takes the cake.

I should have put my name on the ballot for president. I'd have won in a landslide. Nobody would have actually voted for me or anything.....

[formerlurker]

cthulu2016 (2,527 posts)
15. There is a fine for not voting in Australia

View profile
As a civil libertarian I think the right to votes includes the right not to vote.

But demographically, if we had had the Australian system no republican president would ever be elected again, so I wouldn't mind it.

[dane]

What about a counter-offer of votes based on income tax burden.

If you have no income tax burden (pay nothing, get it all back, etc.), you don't get a vote.

Up to $5,000 income tax burden, one vote

$5 - 10K income tax burden, two votes

More than $10K income tax burden, three votes.

This way, the more income tax you pay, the greater voice you have in picking the people who spend it.

You think the DUmmies would go for a plan like this?

[bijou]

So what happens when a KKK member stands in a heavily black district? They really haven't thought this through. 

[Karin]

I know.  That was funny as hell. 

I also like the way the OP states it:  "New Rules for Elections:"  As if he's a little dictator, handing down new rules by decree.  They like that sort of system. 

[AprilRazz]

CK_John (4,875 posts)

 
New Rules for elections: If less than 1/2 turnout, then the uncast ballots go to the LOWEST

candidate on each ballot line. Example 4 candidates run for dog catcher the one with the lowest count would get all unused (uncast)votes in each precinct..

The count of voters would be made public 30 days prior to the elections.

This of course would have more parties(candidates) running since you could win by default.

It would all give us the government we deserve and cleanup the voter rolls.

You snooze you lose.

Even by these rules Steve Dawes still would have lost.

[jukin]

What about a counter-offer of votes based on income tax burden.

If you have no income tax burden (pay nothing, get it all back, etc.), you don't get a vote.

Up to $5,000 income tax burden, one vote

$5 - 10K income tax burden, two votes

More than $10K income tax burden, three votes.

This way, the more income tax you pay, the greater voice you have in picking the people who spend it.

You think the DUmmies would go for a plan like this?

I think that plan was proposed by Dr. Walter Williams and I like it a lot.