Thursday, August 20, 2009

Would voting against rather than for people be more representative?

If you were able to vote against people who you didn't want to represent you(i.e. leaving the rest as people you are ok with), rather than for someone would it result in a better government?

6 comments:

marksany said...

That's a interesting idea, it certainly changes the dynamics in big brother when the voting is changed from voting who evicted to voting for a winner. Lots of voters, me included, vote tactically against a candidate, but often fail if others have a different idea oh who is most likely to beat the hated candidate. How about a choice? You have one vote, you can use it for or against one candidate.

Barking Spider said...

I like it - you could get rid of all the complete and utter bastards in round one and then get rid of the ordinary stupid bastards in round two. Whoever is left after that gets the job! The more I think about it.........yeah!

Sackerson said...

I like the "None of the above" voting option as in the film "Brewster's Millions".

North Northwester said...

Now all we have to do is get it past the political class's unerring instinct for perpetuating its position.

Tricky.

Fausty said...

Why not do both?

Dan Hill said...

It's a more representative principle than abstaining. It would likely put the BNP in negative territory taking the dilemma away from the BBC.