Casting a "protest vote" or "no confidence" vote

With the state of US politics it has become more difficult to sit out an election because you don't support the major candidates or even 3rd party. A vote SHOULD mean that you support and endorse the candidate but in too many cases that is not the case, people cast a defensive vote, which does not mean you support the person you are voting for, nor necessarily endorse them. It merely means you think they will do less harm than the other major candidate. So what I would call this is a "protest vote" or a "no confidence vote" and I feel that there should be some kind of way to make this clear on voting ballots b/c this would give a more clear understanding of the political environment and how people really feel about the government, candidate and political parties.

We often hear "well you voted for them so you are responsible for the candidates actions". This is an unfair attack on people and I think it often tends to make people want to sit out elections b/c they don't want to cast a vote of support and be told "it's your fault - you are responsible for the candidates actions/policies".

If there were a place to check a box that listed the vote as a "defense" vote, or something like "no confidence", would that make more people vote who would other wise sit out? Would people use a box like this and would it allow for a better understanding of the actual support the candidate has - leading to a better overall election process?

What are your thoughts on this and do you think something like this would be useful?

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
We often hear "well you voted for them so you are responsible for the candidates actions". This is an unfair attack on people...

The only way a person would know for whom another person voted is if the person who voted runs their mouth and offers up their political views and I can tell you that no one wants to know what your political views are unless they perfectly align with their own.

I'm voting FOR TRUMP. I'm very sorry you can't figure out who to vote FOR.

I'll be voting for Satan.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof
Why open a can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened? A vote is basically a definitive yea or nay, not a yea but this is why I voted yea. You would be creating unnecessary drama IMO and I think we have enough of that at election time as is.

originally posted by: Lysergic

I'll be voting for Satan.

Thank you.



But, no, you still can't have your soul back.

Reminds me of...

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

People don't vote becuse they're lazy, don't care, aren't caught up with topics, distrust all the candidates... And or a mixture of some or all of the above.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
With the state of US politics it has become more difficult to sit out an election because you don't support the major candidates or even 3rd party. A vote SHOULD mean that you support and endorse the candidate but in too many cases that is not the case, people cast a defensive vote, which does not mean you support the person you are voting for, nor necessarily endorse them. It merely means you think they will do less harm than the other major candidate. So what I would call this is a "protest vote" or a "no confidence vote" and I feel that there should be some kind of way to make this clear on voting ballots b/c this would give a more clear understanding of the political environment and how people really feel about the government, candidate and political parties.

We often hear "well you voted for them so you are responsible for the candidates actions". This is an unfair attack on people and I think it often tends to make people want to sit out elections b/c they don't want to cast a vote of support and be told "it's your fault - you are responsible for the candidates actions/policies".

If there were a place to check a box that listed the vote as a "defense" vote, or something like "no confidence", would that make more people vote who would other wise sit out? Would people use a box like this and would it allow for a better understanding of the actual support the candidate has - leading to a better overall election process?

What are your thoughts on this and do you think something like this would be useful?

I've long felt that there should be a "none of the above" on every ballot.

It's CRAZY how many people jump to conclusions in threads and project their thought/feelings onto others. It's sad and disturbing to think so many people act this way.

I never said this was about Trump nor that I didn't know who to vote for.

I've seen countless video's of people talking about hundreds of candidates that say they only voted for the lesser of evils. As I said, a vote should be an affirmation of the person, of positive support. Ideally that is. Many people just can't vote this way b/c they don't support the person, but they directly oppose the other candidate. Some of these people sit out or vote "other" for ethical reasons where they think a vote should only be a supportive/positive vote.

I think lots of people are scared to even consider this option because it would reveal how little faith there is in the political system over-all and how much people are voting out of fear/defense.

I'll vote for the libertarian candidate, every time, until we (hopefully) finally get one.

Casting a vote is like any other choice in life. Sometimes a person chooses to do something a certain way because it is the easier of two unappealing options.

Does it make any difference if the reasoning behind the chosen course of action is known by others? Will it influence the imposition of different options in the future? I doubt it would.

Casting a vote for the "lesser of two evils" is identical to firing the opponent before they're ever hired: it still makes the intended statement.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
I'll vote for the libertarian candidate, every time, until we (hopefully) finally get one.

I have to ask, what are you accomplishing, by voting for someone who has zero chance of winning?

originally posted by: Lysergic
I'll be voting for Satan.

I don't think Hillary is running.

I also think there should be an opportunity to vote out incumbents in other districts....

For example, take Nancy Pelosi or say Mitch McConnell. Both are old dinosaurs. They are in protected areas being elected by a small group in their respective states. However, they affect all of us across the nation politically...

Why should the rest of the country be held hostage to these buffoons because the voters in their districts have their heads up their rear ends?

We should be able to vote against these people occasionally to get them out of office if their constituents won't wake up.

a reply to: Edumakated

I also think there should be an opportunity to vote out incumbents in other districts.... For example, take Nancy Pelosi or say Mitch McConnell.

Great idea.
But , why not both ?
One is insane , and one is a do nothing .

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Edumakated

I also think there should be an opportunity to vote out incumbents in other districts.... For example, take Nancy Pelosi or say Mitch McConnell.

Great idea.
But , why not both ?
One is insane , and one is a do nothing .

I was just using them as an example to make my point. Left or right, think of any useless incumbent who has been in office for say 25 years or more. There is no way to get them out of office. Their idiot constituents continue to vote for them yet, they affect us all. So periodically, I'd like to open it up so people in other areas can attempt to vote them out.

I'm not sure if I was exactly clear when I called it a protest or no confidence vote. I'm not saying that there should be a way to cast a "negative" vote, such as something that reduces the vote count for a person. I think that is what a couple people may have taken from this by the posts about being able to vote out people like Pelosi. That would still happen the same way, but another candidate getting more votes, not voting "against" them, reducing their vote count.

The way I was thinking was you still vote for the "best" person, but if you are voting only as a defense vote or whatever, then there's a box to check for that. Basically you still give them the vote, but you note that you are doing so "in protest" or whatever, not because you necessarily support them.

If there was a way to know how many people voted this way, it would really show a lot about the political landscape of the country and how they feel about the candidates.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Who you vote for and why are confidential things for a reason: to prevent retaliation. What you are suggesting will not get more people out to vote. Every single person I've ever spoken to who does not vote has always given the same reason as to why: They feel their votes do not count. You can talk until you are blue in the face but they will not change their minds.

a reply to: Edumakated

Not only should "None of the Above" be on the ballot but if "none of the above" wins, those candidates can NEVER run for ANY public office again, EVER!!!

and a new election shall be held, a quorum (50/50) should be in power until the new election.


( oh look "Hi I'm Jimmy Carter, Eat mah nuts" spoke out today, Called President Trump Illegitimate I guess he never heard of the Meuller report)