In order to deal with the problem of people voting against a candidate rather than for him or her, as seems to be the case with the Clinton/Trump match up where majorities say that their vote is driven by their dislike for the opponent, in a segment he adopts an idea that I suggested back in 2014, but which I don’t claim to be original. He had also apparently resurrected his old Comedy Central persona during the conventions and ran into some trouble with the corporate lawyers
Mano Singham
Just another Freethought Blogs site
Good morning Mano,
What I would really like to see would be a “None Of The Above Option.”
I don’t know where I first encountered this idea but I think the source might have been an editorial in Analog in the ’70s.
The idea works like this: if non-of-the-above wins a plurality of the votes then the election is rescheduled for no more than three months in the future and all parties have the option of putting forth new candidates or keeping the candidates they have.
The office doesn’t change until a candidate other than none-of-the-above wins a plurality of the votes cast.
Do all you can to make today a better day.
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
What if the office is empty because the previous office-holder died or went to prison?
@Reginald Selkirk No. 2
In the case of the President of the United States, there is a clear line of succession.
In the case of other elected officials there would be no change under existing law. If the law allows for the appointment of an official, as in the case of members of Congress to serve until the next election, then the person appointed would continue to serve until the successful election of another official. If no appointment is mandated, then the office would remain vacant until the successful election of another official.
Jeff