|
|
|
|
|
|
by sfgd
1309 days ago
|
|
|
NoTA does not solve any problem. It just gives one more avenue for the parties to play with. E.g., parties will try to push voters of their opponents towards NotA. Also it leads to worse outcomes as dreamers/perfectionists choose NotA instead of voting for the best option available, while hardcore supporters go and vote for their favorite candidate. |
|
|
But if you say "Any given winner must have 40% of the total vote" and NotA is included in that universe, then there is an incentive of Party X and Party Y to field viable products. Then there is an incentive for - what's currently written off as - "disinterested voters" (i.e., not, it's crap product being sold) to have a say.
We are told, voting is a means for We The People to express ourselves and influence our representatives. Suppressing the NoaA vote is just that, voter suppression.
The bottom line: NotA is a simple means to a better ends. Without much effort, it addresses a handful of the flaws in the current system.
True story: I live in NJ, just outside the Phila, PA market. We saw *all* the Fetterman v Oz ads (for PA's Senate seat). If I called it a cluster f*k I'd be giving cluster and f*k a bad name. There is simply no way voting for either one of them way sending a message to anyone. If nothing else, it gave both major parties a free pass. It made thousands of voters complicit in the X + Y cartel.