CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
7
Yes No
Debate Score:14
Arguments:7
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (4)
 
 No (3)

Debate Creator

KingOfPopForever(6902) pic



Voters should be given a choice for 'None of the above'.

Yes

Side Score: 7
VS.

No

Side Score: 7
2 points

Yes, there is a important difference between "none of the above" and not voting. Not voting is taken as indifference, silence as permission and acceptance. An "none of the above" option would be taken as a active stance that none of the candidates/options are desirable, and depending on the voting system implemented could actually have a effect: like a recount or change in available candidates/options etc.

Side: yes
1 point

As I recall, they do have something like that. It's called: Not Voting.

Side: yes
1 point

(assuming you live in america) THIS ALREADY EXISTS. Why should the government WASTE money in order to supply citizens with the option to not partake in choosing their leader, when people who remain indifferent to politics can just stay home? No one literally "forces" people to vote, hence the term "democracy." Also, for those indifferent people who wish to have a "none of the above choice," wouldnt it be a waste of THEIR money, on gas or bus fares and such in order to get to the actual poles and vote? Also, I know in my community lines for voting are massive- as far as the eye can see- and voting is a long process, so why would anyone want to waste their time waiting in line to vote and going through the whole ordeal when they dont even want to choose a leader! A "none of the above" option and just staying home and not voting are having the same impact on the outcome of the political race. Why the government would invest money into doing something so stupid with so little impact is beyond me, I mean, wouldnt it just encourage more pervasive indifferance throughout our country?!? Instead, the alternative would be to educate those who wish to vote for "none of the above" about the candidates views and policies. Education is the answer, and by adding a "none of the above" option (which was ignorant to begin with) less people will care about the fate of their country, which ultimatley rests in their hands. We need to provide citizens with eduaction about politcs and their country in order to promote a sense of unity and nationalism, rather than wide-spread ignorance and indifferance. This is why I negate the resoulution that "voters should be given a choice for none of the above," and instead affirm the position that not only does this option already exist, but indifferance should instead be converted into nationalism.

Side: yes

This choice would be a pragmatic one. At least, someone would not have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Side: Yes

What would be the third choice after, "True" and "Wait..., what? No!" ;)

Side: No
2 points

This should be an option, only if we were forced to take part in elections.

Side: No
1 point

No. Spoiled votes are stupid. All it shows is that the voter doesn't like any of the choices, but that they don't care enough to do anything about it. I understand its an attempt to make a statement, but what good is it really doing? These people are still getting elected, the spoiled voter is just not contributing to the decision. Its like saying, "I don't like the choices, and I am going to pretend to care by going through the trouble of submitting a spoiled vote, but I am not going to actually do anything pro-active, because that would take too much effort."

Side: No