Some Ideas on Changes to How We Conduct Elections
Since I was young I remember people, especially liberals, talking about voting for "The Lesser of Two Evils". Perhaps we should let people vote against the greater or greatest evil. What if, in stead of voting for a candidate for office, we could vote against one. An against vote would reduce by one the total votes such a Greatest Evil candidate would have. In a two way race, voting for the Lesser Evil has the same effect, unless both candidates ended up with negative vote totals. If that were to happen, it would make sense to disqualify both of them and start over, holding a new election.
In a race with more than two candidates, being able to vote against one of them would have a more obvious use. As Bill in Portland Maine has pointed out, in Maine the current conservative (or crazy) governor was elected with a minority of the votes because he got most of the conservative vote while several progressives split the liberal vote. If the progressives had been able to vote against LePage in stead of for one of several candidates whom they found acceptable, one of the liberal (or non-crazy) candidates would now be governor.
Previously I've wondered if "None of the Above" should be the last choice on the list in any given race. If None of the Above got more votes than any candidate, everyone on the ballot should be disqualified (maybe for the next several elections) and a new election should be held. I'm now toying with the idea that every voter should get to cast both a yes vote and a no vote. In a multi-candidate race, you'd get to vote yes for the one you like best, and no for the one whom you dread most. If you think all the candidates are acceptable, you could vote no for None of the Above.
I'm not sure what to expect from an election system in which some or all the candidates could end up with negative vote totals. There's an old joke about voting, "Don't vote, it just encourages them." Coming out of an election with a negative vote total ought to discourage any candidate. If every candidate's tally was negative and a repeat election was needed, it would seem to be an indictment of the process that picks candidates. Our current system seems to favor the most extreme candidates in the primaries. The chance that your party might nominate someone who gets a negative vote count might act against that tendency. People voting in the primaries might think harder about nominating someone who wouldn't be likely to draw a lot of no votes in the general election. Coming out of an election with a negative vote total should expose a politician to a big dose of shame and ridicule. Most of the current crop seem pretty impervious to shame, but that much ridicule would probably chase most of them out of public life.
I can't imagine changes like this getting through any legislature, but they'd stand a chance to get on a ballot in states with initiative by petition.
