I am the extremist your Government warned you about....
Remember: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".....But you can help when you buy your AMAZON purchases through my links at no cost to you.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
I'd vote for this
Like I said before, we NEED a choice in our voting.
"And it'd do more to fix things than anything else we have tried"
How? I'd really like to know, how. You can call em an ass or not talk to me but I'm asking a simple question: How. Can you convince me? My mind is utterly open on the subject. I am anxious to be convinced.
I'd be that a majority of the time, unless the candidate had a good track record, or had actually had a platform as top what he/she was going to do, then NOTA would win at least 50+ % of the time.
We'd get a whole 'nother crop of scumbags. Might not fix things, but surely would change 'em.
And yes, change can be for the worse (see 2008) and not for the better. But mostly, we have the same people doing the same idiot things. This (NOTA) would, at least, change that.
But plainly, the voting age population in 2008 was about 231 million, and only about 133 million showed up to vote. So by definition, 38 % of the voting public is already voting for "none of the above". And demonstrably, morons will vote for bread and circuses, so the more who vote "None of the above", the more likely everyone else is to be defeated. I still do not understand what this fixes. Numbers wise, it merely guarantees election for the worst possible outcome.
Maybe we could figure out a way to convinvce the slugs that NOTSA would get them more free stuff. Wait- maybe we could label NOTA 'More free stuff'. Pathetically, I bet a lot would vote for that.
"And it'd do more to fix things than anything else we have tried"
ReplyDeleteHow? I'd really like to know, how. You can call em an ass or not talk to me but I'm asking a simple question: How. Can you convince me? My mind is utterly open on the subject. I am anxious to be convinced.
"None of the above".
ReplyDeletePlain and simple.
Start over.
"I voted but not for any of these folks."
I'd be that a majority of the time, unless the candidate had a good track record, or had actually had a platform as top what he/she was going to do, then NOTA would win at least 50+ % of the time.
We'd get a whole 'nother crop of scumbags. Might not fix things, but surely would change 'em.
And yes, change can be for the worse (see 2008) and not for the better. But mostly, we have the same people doing the same idiot things. This (NOTA) would, at least, change that.
But plainly, the voting age population in 2008 was about 231 million, and only about 133 million showed up to vote. So by definition, 38 % of the voting public is already voting for "none of the above". And demonstrably, morons will vote for bread and circuses, so the more who vote "None of the above", the more likely everyone else is to be defeated. I still do not understand what this fixes. Numbers wise, it merely guarantees election for the worst possible outcome.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we could figure out a way to convinvce the slugs that NOTSA would get them more free stuff. Wait- maybe we could label NOTA 'More free stuff'. Pathetically, I bet a lot would vote for that.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are right. And perhaps many of those 38% wouldn't not vote.
ReplyDeleteEither way, None of The Above would change things. Perhaps for the better, perhaps not.
I'm going with Re-Elect NONE!!!
ReplyDeleteRe-elect none fails to reward the good.
ReplyDelete