I’ve decided there needs to be a new system for voting. Because Hilary and Obama suck, and Edwards, who used to be my number one, is pissing me off with this “America isn’t ready for gay marriage” bullshit, (Even though I guess in honesty everyone except Dennis Kucinich is pretty much saying the same bullshit; and how can anyone possibly vote for that guy? He looks like a pedophile. Seriously, I mean you can joke around about what a pedophile “looks like”, but God, have you seen this guy?) I don’t really want to vote for anyone. I mean, what does that even mean? America isn’t ready for gay marriage? When will it be ready? How will we prepare to get ready? But anyway that’s not the point.
I want to vote so I can exercise my freedom of choice, but these douchebags suck. So here’s what I propose: voting against a candidate instead of directly voting for one. Basically it’s the same principal as voting for Nader or Ross Perot, except you’re not directly flushing your vote down a toilet, so you don’t feel as bad.
Here’s how the brand new (and copyrighted) Anti-Vote™ works: you can either vote directly for a single candidate, like in the old days, or you can use your Anti-Vote™ against a single candidate. You either get one traditional vote or one Anti-Vote™. You can’t vote against multiple people or parties. When all the voting is done, all the traditional votes are added up. But then comes the new part. All the Anti-Votes™ are added up, and that number is subtracted from a candidate’s total number of votes. So, for example, had the Anti-Vote™ been in practice in 2004, everyone who realized John Kerry was a stupid douche (which I hope was pretty much anyone who voted for him) could have simply used their Anti-Vote™ against Bush. Now, ultimately Kerry would’ve won, because even though few people would’ve directly voted for him, so many people would’ve Anti-Voted™ against Bush that Kerry would’ve wound up on top. But, then at least for the next four years we all could have said, “Hey, don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for Kerry. I Anti-Voted™ against Bush.” And I think then we would have felt a lot better about ourselves when Kerry consistently fucked up, which he no doubt would have.
Because my hatred for jerks like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain outweighs any slight admiration I might still have for Edwards or any other Democrat, I would use my Anti-Vote™ against Rudy or McCain if either wins the Republican nomination. But I think the beauty of the Anti-Vote™ is that really it just adds more choice to our democratic election process. Now you would have to choose whether you wanted to vote for someone, or against someone else. You might actually have to think more about your vote. (I should add that the Anti-Vote™ would only be available in final elections, not primaries. Otherwise candidates might actually become more bland and generic so as to avoid pissing off potential voters who could vote against them.) Plus, with the new voting system, it would hopefully be harder for losers to contest election results in court because people wouldn’t simply be voting for one jerk or the other, but could also vote against certain jerks, making it more clear who should win or lose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I like it!
Have you checked out Bill Richardson? No one's talking about him, but he's got some really great ideas. Just saying...
The only problem with Bill Richardson is his complete flop at the LOGO debate when asked about whether homosexuality is a choice. He failed. They gave him a chance to fix it and he still failed.
Other than that, I really like Richardson. He's been a governor, he's Latino, and he has a boatload of foreign policy experience, which we need going forward.
As for the Anti-Vote concept, I want one. I really do. But then, I worry what will happen if Americans start using the line "Well I anti-voted against him!" when they're pissed at their elected officials. It's something about the lack of accountability there that troubles me. Own up to who you vote (or don't vote for). *shrug*
I have to agree about the LOGO debate. That was a disaster. It was so pathetic when they tried to get him to realize how dumb he sounded and he still didn't know what was happening. And plus too it's sad when he only looks good cause the rest of the field is so lackluster.
And I don't see how there's a lack of accountability in voting against someone. Especially when you choose your one particular vote carefully and vote against someone, only to see that person win. There's really nothing else you could do stronger than directly voting against someone. That's why the anti vote is one specific vote, not a generic anti-Republican or democrat vote. But I think I know what you mean. Better to be positive about voting for someone you can support than being so negative and jaded you have to vote against someone else.
I would like to Anti-Vote for John Kerry to cancel out the vote I gave him in 2004. How do you not fight for Ohio? George Bush doesn't have any brothers who are governor of Ohio! You gotta be willing to get in there and mix it up.
Post a Comment