Just wondering.

 

Under our current system the answer is no. If "None of the above" was a choice then yes.

 

"None of the above" is a choice.
I fully intend to vote on solar power and the local sheriff, but not the two presidential candidates.

 

And then again... I consider it legit to vote for the lesser of two evils

 

This election seems to be the worst case of, "lesser of two evils" I have ever seen. Some people believe Trump is stupid enough to launch nuclear missiles and Hillary thinks UAVs are a simple way to murder people who annoy her.

https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/

I can't convince myself to vote for either of them.

I would wonder why nobody with good sense is available for the job, but that's a whole different discussion.

 

The clown or the crook.

YOU have to figure out who is who. Or not.

Hey Moe, Hey Larry, Hey Moe!

 

Just wondering.

Yes. Leave that race blank and let fewer people decide who wins.

 

let fewer people decide who wins.

I'm afraid that's going to be, "nobody".
Somebody will be president, but nobody will win.

 

I encourage you to investigate 3rd party candidates, especially if your state is not considered a battleground state. Illinois will go for whichever name is next to the big "D", no matter what. (At least it looks that way now.)

My vote cannot affect that, so I'm free to make a "message" vote. For instance, I have no illusion that Gary Johnson can win but I could vote for him with a clear conscience that I didn't "waste" my vote.

Now, it's been a while, but Reagan did win Illinois. So I'll have to keep an eye on things until the end.

 

My vote cannot affect that, so I'm free to make a "message" vote (in which case your vote matters more). I have no illusion that Gary Johnson can win but I can vote for him with a clear conscience that I didn't "waste" my vote

I've always hated the ever-present PRI political party down here in Mexico ... this year saw the arrival of a candidate for governor completely independent of any political party into the local scenery (a "disruptor", you may say), and on election day the guy left all the other candidates in the dust ... it's been several months since, and so far he's doing ok ...

My point is, big-establishment parties can, and will be beat, if the right person arrives at the right time.

 

You could stop giving to their foundation (or kind of foundation). But that would hurt many people in Africa or screw some golf courses out of art for their walls.

 

I encourage you to investigate 3rd party candidates, especially if your state is not considered a battleground state. Illinois will go for whichever name is next to the big "D", no matter what. (At least it looks that way now.)

My vote cannot affect that, so I'm free to make a "message" vote. For instance, I have no illusion that Gary Johnson can win but I could vote for him with a clear conscience that I didn't "waste" my vote.

Now, it's been a while, but Reagan did win Illinois. So I'll have to keep an eye on things until the end.

Yeah, Gary Johnson is the guy who has no idea what Aleppo is - (he thought it was an Acronym), he couldn't name a single other foreign leader besides "the former president of Mexico" and when asked, which one, he couldn't give a name. Also, his Vice Presidental running mate decided that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to be the next president - what a stamp of approval for Johnson!

Yes, don't wast your vote, vote for Johnson to keep your conscience clear and make sure you can point your finger at whoever does win and be able to say, I'm glad I didn't vote for him/her.

 

How would you count a "vote against someone"?
Subtract it from someone's vote for that someone?

 

My vote cannot affect that, so I'm free to make a "message" vote. For instance, I have no illusion that Gary Johnson can win but I could vote for him with a clear conscience that I didn't "waste" my vote.

A protest vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump because Johnson has no chance of winning and he is attracting Millennials who supported Sanders and don't like Trump, but can't stomach voting for Clinton.

A vote for someone who has no chance of winning is a "wasted" vote.

 

A dartboard choice of a random American from the phone book would likely be safer than either of the two major party candidates. The 3rd party candidates may not be great, but the bar is set quite low this year.

 

A protest vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump because Johnson has no chance of winning and he is attracting Millennials who supported Sanders and don't like Trump, but can't stomach a for Clinton.

A vote for someone who has no chance of winning is a "wasted" vote.

No, it isn't. In Illinois any candidate without the big "D" has no chance. Are you suggesting we in Illinois should all just concede and vote that way?

I do agree that most Johnson votes in Illinois may come out of Hillary's hide. But there won't be anywhere near enough of them to put Trump over the top here. At least the way things look today.

 

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Voting for someone who has no chance of winning is a wasted vote. You've voted your conscience, but it has no chance of allowing the person you voted for to make a difference as POTUS.

 

Subtract it from someone's vote for that someone?

Say, that's not a bad idea!

 

I do agree that most Johnson votes in Illinois may come out of Hillary's hide. But there won't be anywhere near enough of them to put Trump over the top here.

Can't follow your logic. If Clinton loses a vote to Johnson, that's the same as a vote for Trump if it causes Trump to beat Clinton in that state by one vote because it's the one she didn't get.

 

I've always wanted to have a "none of the above" option.
If it gets the most votes, then all parties on the ballot have to nominate a new candidate and we have a second vote three or four months later.

Imagine there's no president... I wonder if you can...