Voting when you don't like any of the candidates.

[Tigers!]

I am already sick of hearing about trump, Hillary and Bernie and I am in Australia. You septics must really fed up.

For my edification of your voting system and to compare to Australia's let craft a scenario.

It is Trump vs Hillary.
I know that voting is not compulsory over in USA. But if you wish to vote and can't stand either candidate what do you do?

In Australia you can deliberately deface/ruin your ballot and stick it in the box. That vote will be counted but will be classed as informal. This is a method whereby we in OZ can register a protest at the poor or non-existent quality of the candidates on offer. Why this is good is because the Aust. Electoral Commission (AEC) publishes the results of all candidate votes including the informal votes cast. We can see that over time the protest vote in Australia has been increasing and the parties have been forced to pay attention. We have had a couple of situations where the informal vote has come second or third and this causes parties to take note. One consequence is that they get less money. The AEC distributes money based upon successful votes. If the informal is too large the parties/candidates miss out on money and no party likes that.

Is there a similar system in the USA?

(On 8/5 we had an announcement of a Commonwealth election on 2/7. That is 56 days and already we are sick of the campaign. How do you septics cope with > 1 year campaigns?)

 

[jonatha]

In general there is no such system in the US.

Voting procedures vary by county, and many use electronic voting machines on which it is not possible to spoil a ballot.

The choices are to vote for a third party candidate or vote for other offices in the ballot but not for the one with the objectionable candidates. The discrepancy in the total number of ballots cast for the various offices will be noticed and may be remarked upon.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's the main point of negative campaigning - to depress turnout amongst your opponents' supporters. IIRC, it's been found to be the most effective type of campaigning in regards to the effects you get for the money you spend. When you don't need to come out and vote, it also helps all the down ticket candidates by having less people vote for them. It sucks, but it works.

And yes, it's really fucking weird how long the US election runs for.

 

[SimpleDon]

First of all I am infection free. At least I hope that I am.

In a large degree, we get the candidates and the officeholders that we deserve.

Trump, for example, is only repeating the nonsense that has convinced half of the country to vote Republican for the last thirty five years. He is just more ham fisted in his delivery than most and has too much gravis as a reality television star to be laughed completely off of the stage.

But there is little that he has said that Republicans haven't been saying for thirty five years or that isn't a logical extension of what they have been saying, e.g., women being guilty of murder if abortion is illegal, fertilized eggs are human beings with full rights and the women have an abortion.

 

[Rhea]

Some ways to protest:

1. Undervoting: voting for some offices on the ballot but not all. This shows that either you screwed up voting or you protested that office. No one can tell the difference.
2. Third Party Parallel Vote: When the main party candidate ALSO runs on third party, you can vote for the main (say, Dem) candidate's name on the 3rd party (say, "working families") line. This shows that you are willing to take the Dem over the repub, but you want to lodge a left-wing leaning. This is unambiguous, "lean further left if you want to keep my vote". This is usually only possible on down-ballot votes, not presidential offices.
3. Third Party Separate Vote: if the 3rd party is not the same name as the main party, you can vote for that.
   
   - If you are in a swing state, it shows ideological zeal; that you don't care whether it's Repub or Dem, you want to show your colors as an outsider.
   - If you are in a non-swing (solid) state, this shows that you'd like the party to move left (or right) more.
   - (see strategic voting to hold ground while making a statement)​
4. Write-in vote: people can coordinate to write in a particular name or word that makes a statement. See above for swing-state v. solid state impacts.
5. Strategic voting: if you are in a swing state, and you want to vote 3rd party but still act to PREVENT the worse party, you make a pact with a friend in a solid state wherein YOU vote for the Dem and THEY vote for the green. This way the total number of Green (or any other 3rd party) votes shows truly how many people are dissatisfied WHILE making sure that we don't go backwards from allowing the truly bad guys into office.
6. Staying home: Indistinguishable between the lazy, the illiterate, the overworked and the political boycotter. A useless option as it sends no discernible message.

 

[fromderinside]

1. Staying home: Indistinguishable between the lazy, the illiterate, the overworked and the political boycotter. A useless option as it sends no discernible message.

We should have sanctions or incentives regarding this.

 

[Sarpedon]

You septics must really fed up.

Is this a typo or an insult?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are plenty of other things to vote on and one can always leave their ballot unvoted for any particular position on the ballot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some places have a "None of the above" option on the ballot. It's purely a protest vote, though, if it got 51% that wouldn't mean a new election with new candidates.

 

[KeepTalking]

You septics must really fed up.

Go fuck yourself, <insert insult that applies to Aussies here>.

 

[untermensche]

Sick of Bernie?

How is that possible?

He has a people's message that hasn't been expressed at this level since the 1940's.

 

[ZiprHead]

Obama was about the only presidential candidate I've ever voted FOR. The rest were because I disliked the opponent more. Looks like it will be again.

 

[beero1000]

I've never lived in a state where my vote mattered in any real sense - at least not more than the 'every vote matters' sense, because of an easily predictable blue state with 10+% margins. Now that I've moved and PA is looking like it could be close, I'm actually going to have to vote. Is it reasonable to be annoyed that my fellow citizens' stupidity is forcing me to perform my civic responsibilities? How can I protest?

 

[fromderinside]

I've never lived in a state where my vote mattered in any real sense - at least not more than the 'every vote matters' sense, because of an easily predictable blue state with 10+% margins. Now that I've moved and PA is looking like it could be close, I'm actually going to have to vote. Is it reasonable to be annoyed that my fellow citizens' stupidity is forcing me to perform my civic responsibilities? How can I protest?

Oh poor baby. You vote doesn't matter. Mine neither. Except when we were the last to put our mail in ballots one a sewer payment plan where my bride and I being new to the area voted for rate payers to foot the bill which was the winning side by one vote. When is that vote going to happen? Never if you don't vote silly. Amazing philosophy that. Democracy with no responsibility because my vote doesn't count.

In your case I'd try a cry in at city hall.

 

[beero1000]

Well that seems unnecessarily hostile. Congratulations on your sewer.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah. It is. At 74 I get a bit chippy reading weak reasoning about voting responsibility I heard way back when I was 19. You are a citizen are you not. Try on your responsibility robes. You'll find they fit quite well, are comfortable, and they are easy to justify.

 

[beero1000]

Yeah. It is. At 74 I get a bit chippy reading weak reasoning about voting responsibility I heard way back when I was 19. You are a citizen are you not. Try on your responsibility robes. You'll find they fit quite well, are comfortable, and they are easy to justify.

Lol, do you think you might be projecting a little bit? Chippy old man, indeed.

I understand that nuance is hard to get across in text, but go back and reread my post - I still think that it's pretty clear that it's a tongue-in-cheek complaint about Trump's support in which I never said that I hadn't voted before, only that now I HAVE to vote to cancel out the stupid.

Of course, that said, I can still understand enough statistics to know how much a single vote in a heavily skewed state is worth. Nothing.

 

[laughing dog]

I am already sick of hearing about trump, Hillary and Bernie and I am in Australia. You septics must really fed up.

I live in the USA and I have been sick hearing about Drumpf and Hillary for a couple of months now. So, I feel your pain and will feel it for 6 more months or so.

 

[bilby]

1. Staying home: Indistinguishable between the lazy, the illiterate, the overworked and the political boycotter. A useless option as it sends no discernible message.

We should have sanctions or incentives regarding this.

We do - the fine is $20 plus court costs (the court costs are typically around $170). As a result, we have turnouts in the 93-95% range for Federal House of Representatives ballots.

- - - Updated - - -

You septics must really fed up.

Go fuck yourself, <insert insult that applies to Aussies here>.

Ouch! Alert the burns unit!

 

[bilby]

The Australian Electoral Commission did an analysis of 'informal' votes after the 2010 federal election, due to a significant increase in such votes over the previous (2007) election; an informal vote is any ballot that was cast, but cannot be counted.

They divide such ballots into 'assumed unintentionally informal' - ballots where the voter wanted to cast a valid vote, but failed to follow the instructions correctly; and 'assumed intentionally informal' - ballots where the voter did not intend to vote. Blank ballots, and those with obscenities, doodles and slogans are 'assumed intentionally informal', and these are the 'protest votes'. They amounted to just over half (51.4%) of informal votes, or about 0.87% of all votes cast in 2010.

So 6.8% of eligible voters didn't vote at all in 2010, risking a fine; and another 1.6% cast an invalid vote (for which there is no penalty) of whom about half deliberately didn't vote, and the other half invalidated their vote by not filling out the paper correctly (in federal elections, every box on the HR paper must be numbered for the vote to count; but in many states, only one box need be numbered, and about a third of informal ballots are papers that would be valid if cast in those state or territory elections. The 'assumed unintentionally informal' rate in each electorate correlates strongly negatively with the level of proficiency in English: "Five out of the 10 divisions with the highest informality rates at the 2010 House of Representatives election also had the five highest proportions of persons who, at the 2006 Census of Population and Housing, indicated that they did not speak English well, or did not speak English at all."

To me this suggests that low turnout in other countries, where failing to vote carries no penalty, is mostly about apathy rather than a deliberate protest - when required to attend the ballot or pay a fine, most people choose to attend; and most attendees choose to cast a valid vote - or at least to attempt to do so.