[phaster]

Just had a special election here in town to replace a mayor who was forced to resign because he was a pervert.

in the run off election the two candidates were "career" politicians and write in candidates were not allowed.

my big problem is I don't think it matters who is in office because I have lost faith in the political system.

What I'd like is to have a third option! Lets say there was a grass roots movement for a constitutional amendment that stated if 2/3 of the voters vote "no confidence" in an ballot where there were only candidates, bar those two candidates from holding any elected office for 5 years.

Figure the election system is so biased, and the two political parties are so entrenched in US politics, there needs to be some kind of constitutional mechanism to rid the political process of all the dead wood.

so anyone else think the system is so broken there should be some kind of drastic change?

[Quinny]

For some time I've thought voting should be compulsory ie a duty, but with an option none of the above.

Think it's a bit harsh to ban candidates from office for not winning.

[vtsnowedin]

You can change things at any election, just bring forth a better candidate. You would think there would be plenty of better people to choose from but many of the best do not want their personal lives and family put under a microscope.

[phaster]

Last week turned on the boob tube and noticed it was dumb and dumber ad season (and sadly I'm not talking about the comedy sequel).

With districts being "gerrymandered" so politicians are entrenched, or when there is an actual race too often I have noticed lots of mud being slung, in both cases candidates IMHO aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

So anyone else feel voters deserve another option, when faced with candidates that are running unopposed or trying to decide between dumb and dumber?

My guess is if voters actually felt their voices were being heard above business as usual politics (on both the left and right), then there would be greater voter participation.

So I'm wondering how hard would it be to get "public" support for something like a 28th "voters participation" amendment (i.e. ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl3sgKj6oTQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXUPDAMc_6o

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/rmbag ... ank-update

Basically I want a ballot that states, along with the list of candidates there should be an option to vote "no confidences" (I would like this option even when a candidate is running unopposed, for council members, judges, the dog catcher, etc.)

So I am thinking if the voters see fit to have a majority "no confidences" then the elected official would be sworn in, but not allowed to collect pay, have staff or make any policy decisions. The logic behind this argument is it would make officials less likely to try and push some kind of special interest agenda.

[Subjectivist]

How about if no confidence wins the election there is a new election within 90 days and none of the candidates who were in the prior election can participate? Lifetime ban for any politician who loses to no confidence.

[jedrider]

Yes, absolutely! 'Non of the above' needs to be put on the ballot. And, if he wins, we STILL get gridlock.

Anyway, we've had third party candidates (at times) appear on the ballot and they poll so badly, I don't think this suggestion will change the behavior of the sheeple any.