Cast your ballot "For, Against or None"


Republican: Brownback, Gilmore, Gingrich, Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Paul, Romney, Tancredo, F. Thompson, T. Thompson.

Democratic: Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson.

I Know It Is Still Way Early

Some of us have a very good idea who we want to lead our party into the future and beyond. We have based our decisions on each candidates ethics, values, experience and many other factors. Others of us have no idea who we want to be the decision maker, or mover and shaker, of our party. Although most of us have yet to make a decision, many of us have already made the decision on who we certainly do NOT want as our party representative or leader. I think that this is what drives a person to vote a specific way. Not so much who we want to win, but who we do not want to win. Based on this theory I submit the following be incorporated into the next Presidential Election.

I will begin by saying that while watching American Idol last season, I always wondered why they count the amount of votes for, instead of the amount of votes against. This idea (though in the back of my mind) was brought to the forefront after talking to the Director of Brenau University's KingsBay Campus, Mr. Robert North. He put a Presidential Election spin on it that reiterates an idea I had in the past for something on a much smaller scale. Here is his concept:

Each person will get one vote. Each individual will have the option to vote either FOR a candidate, AGAINST a candidate, or may vote for a counted NONE OF THE ABOVE (No, this does not mean Richard Pryor would become our party's selection).

Let us provide an example: As of right now, I have some favorites that I will vote for to represent the GOP. If I had to vote today, I would be in a situation where I would vote for a candidate in which I would not feel 100 percent confident in. However, I am 100+ percent confident I do not want Ron Paul to represent the GOP. Therefore, if I "had" to vote right now, I would cast an AGAINST vote for Rep. (I will disband the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security...)Paul. 

The end result will be the same, he/she who has the most votes, wins! So if, for example purposes only, Mrs. Clinton receives 200,000 FOR votes (oh please no) and 150,000 AGAINST votes (much better), she would have a total of only 50,000 votes. If the NONE OF THE ABOVE votes are more than any candidate, then we enter the war room and do it again. 

I feel this approach will accomplish a few things. One, the candidate will know how the public that he/she is chosen to lead really feels about him/her. Secondly, it will generate money for campaigns to promote AGAINST votes. Lastly, it would generate MORE voters and would be pretty fun to watch.

Now keep in mind the winner may indeed have negative votes, but this will mean that at least people have voted, something that is in dire need of increasing. How many votes would have Mr. Clinton received under this concept? One can only dream and wonder.

Here is what you can do...
I am going to go to my place of employment and my local area and asking different demographics some questions related to this concept. I encourage you to do the same and post your questions and results as a comment. I will post a follow-on BLOG stating what my questions were and the results of those questions. I am going to base the scenario on the fact that "if you were to vote today..". I will ask in both the party candidate format and a heads-up format. I think we will be surprised at the results and outcome of the quantitative data we collect. Thank-you for your time and be sure to check back often.

Troy Scott