Freedom of choice... for who we may vote for... or against

Submitted by MoreCommonCents t3_y5lfpm in Washington

I don't know if this is a good place to sell an idea here or not, but I hope so. As I see it there are two ways that the state of Washington stacks the deck with regards to the voter process, and I would like the people of this state to eliminate those restrictions so that people can vote the way that they really would like to vote.

  1. Although we have many people on the ballot for each position each time we vote in the primaries, only two choices are allowed each time the vote really matters. That restriction only favors the politicians, not the voters, and is designed by our two party system which, IMHO, is clearly not serving us very well.
  2. If we could eliminate that first and most important restriction, then and only then this second change would transform the election process in such a dramatic way: allow us to vote NO. Specifically what this means is that anyone can cast a negative vote for one candidate instead of a positive vote for another. It seems like most people are voting for someone who they are not crazy about simply to make it less likely for someone they really hate from winning. If you can simply vote no for the person you hate you accomplish the same thing without supporting anyone who is simply not them.

The Secretary of State is actually a more important position than what most of us realize because they are in charge of the voting process. Who is with me? Who wants better voting choices?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Anaxamenes t1_isk8rbq wrote

This is why ranked choice voting is a thing and quite useful. You shouldn’t need to vote against someone, you should be able to rank your choices leaving the worst off your ballot completely.

15

MoreCommonCents OP t1_isk997k wrote

Yeah, ranked choice voting is a great option, also currently unavailable to us. I like it even better, but the right to vote no is enough to make a big change.

1

giant2179 t1_iskhpqt wrote

Why bother advocating for a lesser option if you agree that ranked choice would be better? Voting no just seems to further the divide and increase negativity in campaigning.

Ranked choice voting is a ballot initiative in Seattle this year, so it is definitely gaining support.

8

MoreCommonCents OP t1_iskn4cp wrote

I have little faith in the voting masses. I know too many who vote for someone they do not like because of their hate for someone else. Ranked choice is great for the well informed. But for the uninformed, easily manipulated masses it is simply a bit more complicated and I suspect they would vote against that option. So I guess the main reason for suggesting a "vote no" option is that I think it would be a positive change that more people might support, therefore making it more likely to accomplish. Ultimately the first issue is simply giving us more than two choices per position.

−5

Rocketgirl8097 t1_isou7y2 wrote

We get more than two choices in the primary and then we narrow it down. Recall that there were about dozen people running for senator from mostly make believe parties.

1

Anaxamenes t1_islum0f wrote

We are currently voting on rank choice voting where I am. It’s had some success in other states too so it makes sense to continue with the choice that makes for a more positive voting experience instead of a negative one.

2

MoreCommonCents OP t1_itca9fd wrote

I just read up on the current proposal for ranked choice voting, and I don't like the details of it. It sounds like the party that has the most candidates is almost guaranteed to "win" in the end. That's may not be the intent, but when a candidate can turn votes cast for them over to a candidate of their choice they have what amounts to a "super vote". The rule that requires that the winner of an election to receive more than 50% of the votes, one way or another, effectively eliminates the ability of a third party to win. Our system that favors two parties is the primary issue that I would like to change.

The approval voting system also being discussed also clearly focuses on two parties. We need to allow significant third party choices to be on the ballot and we need to allow them a fair way to win the election when so many voters do not care for the two primary parties.

1

Anaxamenes t1_itcku5k wrote

That’s not how it works. Voters choose their ranked choices, if their first choice doesn’t get enough votes they are removed from consideration and that voters next choice is then awarded their vote instead. The voters chooses who that is, not the candidate.

2

MoreCommonCents OP t1_itedys5 wrote

I think the site I first found details for had those details incorrect. Or maybe I read it wrong, but I don't think so. Thank you for that clarification. That makes more sense.

I still don't like it, for a different reason though. It is would still be difficult to get a third party to receive more votes than either of the other two primary parties. Which bring me back to being able to cast one negative vote instead of ranked voting. If someone feels really strongly about preventing one of those two candidates they vote negatively for them. That increases the chance of a third party winning, even if they receive less positive votes than either of the "major parties".

1

Anaxamenes t1_itgmfm4 wrote

It should actually be easier for a third party to get votes. In an area where one party has more voters, that second round might actually be more valuable to the voter who is from the party with fewer voters in that district. They may not get their first choice, but their second choice would be better for them than no choice at all. The likely second choice would be more moderate but that is still a better choice for a voter than someone completely opposite of what they want.

Early on, this would allow many more candidates to be on the ballot. Perhaps your favorite didn’t make it on the ballot normally because it’s difficult to stand out. This could give them more of an opportunity because you wouldn’t have to throw your vote away to vote against someone else. You would select your favorite, then perhaps the candidate you think is tolerable and more likely to win. Not damaging either candidates chances but actually voting the way you really want to.

1

MoreCommonCents OP t1_itihm00 wrote

More than 2 choices on the actually ballot is of course essential. And anything that moves us towards that is a good move. The battle with regards to third party candidates is the age old argument that if you don't vote for someone who can actually win you are wasting your vote altogether. And that is why people continually vote for someone they do not support in an effort to prevent someone they really are concerned might win if they do not. If given the choice to cast a negative vote for that candidate I think they would take it as they are less concerned about which of the other choices might win.

So how does one vote when they really don't want one candidate to win? I guess they rank them last, and hope that everyone is clever enough to do the same. If voters actually did that they could effectively cast a negative vote as well as casting preferential votes to anyone other than that last choice.

1

Anaxamenes t1_itj4oj4 wrote

You don’t rank them last, you don’t rank them at all. Essentially that is a vote against them because your vote will go to someone else no matter what. The best part is it allows for third party candidates. You don’t like your party candidate? No problem, you can vote for a different person first and if that person doesn’t end up getting it, you might get your second or third choice but they would still be much better than getting the person you felt you should use your vote to vote against.

1

intrepidated t1_iska04y wrote

Block corporate funding for political campaigns. Stop gerrymandering. Restrict campaigning so it's the exact same for all candidates - and same cost. Ranked choice voting.

We know what needs to be done, just no power to get it changed. You can't fix the system using the broken system.

6

doktorhladnjak t1_iskrmoc wrote

What you’ve described is basically approval voting which is on the ballot in Seattle this year. Vote for whoever and however many candidates you want. You’re basically crossing out anyone else.

The Secretary of State does not control these aspects of the voting system. It requires legislation or an initiative.

2

Rocketgirl8097 t1_isotrqd wrote

Ranked choice voting fixes this. I dont like it when you end up with two from the same party to vote for either.

1