Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NYC Liberal

(20,444 posts)
28. So you want to deny representation to tens of thousands or more people
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:46 AM
Aug 2012

because the candidates suck? Tell me exactly how that works. Are you also going to exempt every person in that district from paying federal taxes? Will they be exempt from having to follow the laws passed by a Congress in which they had no voice?

Your solution is no solution at all. It is the mark of a tyrannical, undemocratic state that would deny representation to countless thousands of people -- or even millions, if we're talking about a senator.

As for your two hypothetical candidates: tell me where they stand on the issues. I'll pick one. At least I'll have some representative who I can lobby or protest or put pressure on. If I don't have that, who do I go to? A representative for another district? They are beholden to their constituents, not to me, because they were elected to represent their own district. Another senator? Same problem.

What happens if we apply this to the presidency? We're just going to go without a president for four years? We're going to have an empty executive branch (because the president appoints members of that branch). Who's going to sign the laws? Who's going to enforce them?

Your "rare-but-could-happen" scenario is not justification to turn a representative democracy into one in which millions are potentially denied a voice in their government. Even if it did happen where both candidates were shitty, it's not the end of the world. On the state level, you have recall elections. On the federal level, a member of Congress can be expelled -- and I have zero doubt that a convicted pedophile would be expelled on day one 99-0 in the Senate or 434-0 in the House. (State legislatures have expulsion mechanisms as well.) Executive officials and judges can be impeached.

Oh and if both major-party candidates were so unpopular that more people actually voted "none of the above" than either of them, some other candidate would undoubtedly step in and as long as they weren't totally nuts, would probably win easily. There's always five or six people running on those "Asian Cattle Ranchers For Freedom"-type party tickets.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If you hate your govt so much you have to vote "none"... JohnnyRingo Aug 2012 #1
I disagree. David__77 Aug 2012 #2
I see the point... JohnnyRingo Aug 2012 #6
I propose a compromise Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2012 #36
If you think there is always a worthy candidate for every office, A Simple Game Aug 2012 #5
You don't have to feel sorry for me, I'm already a Democrat JohnnyRingo Aug 2012 #7
I'm even worse off, I'm a liberal. I voted for Bill Owens for representative, and will again. A Simple Game Aug 2012 #24
How quaint tama Aug 2012 #9
I assume you're represented by a Republican Tea Bagger. JohnnyRingo Aug 2012 #11
No one represents me tama Aug 2012 #13
I don't know why you're in Democratic Underground JohnnyRingo Aug 2012 #14
Simply tama Aug 2012 #15
If you're not an American... JohnnyRingo Aug 2012 #23
Of course there are wonderful people tama Aug 2012 #31
This subthread concerns whether a "None" option is ever sensible, not whether it's unconstitutional Jim Lane Aug 2012 #16
I wrote in "none" for every local race in 2008 and only cast votes at the top of the ticket. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #19
I live in Nevada and have voted for "None" Nevernose Aug 2012 #22
Although I can understand why one may LanternWaste Aug 2012 #37
mkaes me think they need those not voted portions for election fraud...... robinlynne Aug 2012 #3
And what is the difference in my voting for none of the above and A Simple Game Aug 2012 #4
See .3 for the most obvious one. Nihil Aug 2012 #8
Out with all of them! tama Aug 2012 #10
"if the "None of the above" won the majority, none would be elected" NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #17
Constitutions can be rewritten tama Aug 2012 #18
Yeah, but why would it be a good idea to have no one elected? NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #21
Why would it be a good idea to have no one elected? A Simple Game Aug 2012 #26
So you want to deny representation to tens of thousands or more people NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #28
Belgia tama Aug 2012 #30
Well I would quite mind having no government. NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #38
I don't tama Aug 2012 #39
Why thank you for thinking I am God but I'm not. A Simple Game Aug 2012 #32
And the people who didn't vote not to have representation? NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #34
If you want to exempt people from paying taxes you will guarantee A Simple Game Aug 2012 #40
"You would rather have a terrible Representative than a do over?" NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #41
I should have been clearer, yes I do mean a system where another election is A Simple Game Aug 2012 #42
"no State without it's Consent" A Simple Game Aug 2012 #25
You realize it's the state legislatures that ratify amendments? NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #29
You realize it's the voters that install the legislatures. A Simple Game Aug 2012 #33
Yes. And like I said, any state that had enough people who were dumb enough to NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #35
I usually just do write-in's for cartoon characters. Xithras Aug 2012 #12
Donald Duck tama Aug 2012 #20
The favorite in Minnesota Mnpaul Aug 2012 #27
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge strikes down Nevada...»Reply #28