Arkansas Blog

I think it's a long overdue option and will increase voter turnout because so many will now be able to say, start over.

I wrote a college paper on this in the late 60s. The proff liked it but said it would never pass the legislative process. Great Britain has long had the "no confidence" vote.

As it is presently structured you can only vote "No" on acts.

Also, the time has arrived for Instant Runoff Voting. Holding run off elections is too expensive. Our technology provides an easy path to Instant Runoff Voting.

Great idea, but what happens when some joker legally chages his name to "None Oftheabove" and wins the primary?

The AP Poll last week had None of Above at 23%, Rudy G. at 21%. So those trend setting Republicans are ahead of liberal, blue state, Massachusetts on this one.

The last few years have shown a big flaw in America's political system. Tons of other countries around the world can change their government over night with a no confidence vote....America has to wait 4 years to throw the bum out.

If we'd throw us a No Confidence vote, Cheney-Bush would have been out of office 2 or 3 years ago. Think of how many lives that would have saved! OK...for Republican readers....Think how much money that would have saved!

Cheney has shown the world that America ain't the greatest country on the planet. So why not give up the stupid notion that we have to live with our mistake for 4 long years before a wrong can be made right?

I've only got a few more 4 year terms left in me. While our soldiers have been doing the real suffering...I too suffer because I know Cheney-Bush has ruined the few precious years of my life that I have left.

We live in a time of plenty...PLENTY! Technology has made possible an amazing life for us. Never before can we feed the hungry and heal the poor with such lightening speed and efficiency. Never before has there been so many groups trying to save the environment, save Africa, feed the poor, heal the sick, find water for the thirsty.

Instant information saves lives. The mind-blowing abundance of wealth can save the world with its pocket change. Children sit in huts, on dirt floors using hundred dollar, wind-up laptops learning about the rest of the world. The glow of the tiny monitor the only sign of electricity for miles around.

And what are these kids learning about America today? That the largest supposedly free country on earth is being taken over by a Dictator. That America wages war to steal oil. That America kidnaps and tortures and kills.

That sick Americans die because our health care system has wedded Big Insurance and Big Pharma. That every Republican screaming about Family Values has a whore on the side.

Cheney-Bush are ruining what could be a great awakening of the planet. We have the tools to bring peace to our planet, but some of the same technology is being used to bring misery and death instead.

Because of ancient laws we must wait thru another 15 months of death and destruction to be rid of a pack of criminals who have no respect for any law on the book that doesn't protect only them. For shame! For shame!

I wonder how that would affect elections in which the candidate must achieve a majority of those voting to be elected. Could this force a candidate who received the majority of votes cast among the candidates, but not a majority among the total votes cast counting "none of the above," into a runoff?

What if "None of the Above" came in second, but neither got a majorit?. Perhaps, if "none of the above" won in a runoff, they'd just have to abolish whatever office it was.

Hmm.

The concept raises some interesting philosophical questions for me, for which I have no answers.

In an election in which only a plurality of votes is required to prevail, do I have a responsibility to determine whether NOTA is merely a symbolic and vain gesture, and instead vote *against* the person most likely (because of relative lack of character or relative capability) to do evil if elected?

To use a rhetorical extreme, would there be a better vote than NOTA even if the election were Hitler vs. Mussolini? Cheney vs. Rumsfeld? (And to be clear, I am not comparing the latter set of men to the former.)

Does it depend on whether the election projections are sufficiently close that I (along with others like me) could reasonably expect to make some difference?

I don't know. Just thinking about this....

Go ahead and compare them Tap....won't hurt my feelings a bit.

The next question should be: is no government better than bad government?

I'm thinking "Brewster's Millions" here...this is not a "new idea."

Anyhow, we damned sure better keep an eye on who we elect in the future as the current mess we're in points to the willful ignorance of voters in the past.