Un-votes (from the Atlas section)

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

There are some posts about negative votes occuring in an election - and even thought it was a mistake, I kinda like the idea.

I've been kicking around the idea of a un-vote system.

A) Each person gets one vote - they can use it as either a positve vote for a candidate or a negative vote against a candidate.  So they could vote and + 1 for candidate A or vote -1 towards candidate B.

B) Each person gets a positive and a negative vote - they could positively vote for A and negatively vote for B, +1 for A and -1 for B (or only use one of those options)

Such a system, though crazy , might force candidates to not go negative against one another so that the other sides voters would be less likely to cast a negative vote against them.  The end result could be candidates who have more broad support.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

It'd be easier just to have a NOTA option

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

A)  It's not as fun as un!  (new slogan for un-voting system)

B) Don't insult Libs by presuming that ON would make them their second choice

C) Compulsory voting is terribly un-democratic.  It forces individuals who have not been paying attention to the system to cast a ballot that they are too uninformed to make a proper decision on.  People should have the right to opt out if they so choose, even though it is one of their most fundamental responsibilities.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

A) un as in the un-voting system
pronounced "unn"

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

100% correct Gustaf!

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

20% right Gustaf. The state shouldn't force people to do so, so its not like pople will be forced at gunpoint to vote. But a reasonable fee for not voting ($20, perhaps) is enough of an incentive. In theory that would mean we are paying people $20 to vote! (I know it's skewed logic )

Sheesh...You are SUCH a Democrat....

What happens if they refuse to pay the fee?