reverse voting

[Advocate]

All eligible candidates are on the ballot. Every citizen votes by vetoing as many as they want. Whoever gets the fewest vetoes wins, and second fewest is vice president.

[commonsense]

All eligible candidates are on the ballot. Every citizen votes by vetoing as many as they want. Whoever gets the fewest vetoes wins, and second fewest is vice president.

...as many as they want...? How would that work?

[Skepdick]

...as many as they want...? How would that work?

You get to veto everyone.

As a form of protest against the available options. Choose not to choose.

[commonsense]

So I could veto more or less candidates than you might choose to do. You’re pulling my leg, aren’t you.

[Walker]

All eligible candidates are on the ballot. Every citizen votes by vetoing as many as they want. Whoever gets the fewest vetoes wins, and second fewest is vice president.

That's a lot of folks since there's only 3 requirement to be a POTUS.

[FlashDangerpants]

All eligible candidates are on the ballot. Every citizen votes by vetoing as many as they want. Whoever gets the fewest vetoes wins, and second fewest is vice president.

...as many as they want...? How would that work?

Much like actively not celebrating celebrating 364 unbirthdays a year.

The notion proposed in the OP is a lazy form of ranked choice voting where you don't bother setting preferences, and just put all the people you can stand the sight of into an undifferentiated bucket. Then at the end of the election someone compares all those lazy undifferentiated buckets, and picks the blandest candidate who actively offended nobody and was target of the least negative advertising.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=500340 time=1614784770 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=500270 time=1614744011 user_id=15238]
All eligible candidates are on the ballot. Every citizen votes by vetoing as many as they want. Whoever gets the fewest vetoes wins, and second fewest is vice president.
[/quote]

...as many as they want...? How would that work?
[/quote]

Uh, just check the boxes next to the names? It's not clear what you're asking. Veto as many candidates as you want. Or if you're feeling plucky, veto them all and your vote will be registered as None Of The Above. Or don't veto anyone and be registered as apathetic.

[Advocate]

[quote=Walker post_id=500354 time=1614787061 user_id=11599]
[quote=Advocate post_id=500270 time=1614744011 user_id=15238]
[u]All eligible candidates[/u] are on the ballot. Every citizen votes by vetoing as many as they want. Whoever gets the fewest vetoes wins, and second fewest is vice president.
[/quote]
That's a lot of folks since there's only 3 requirement to be a POTUS.
[/quote]

If the credentials are meaningful the list will be manageable.

[Skepdick]

This idea actually has merit.

We know damn well that people have negatively bias - the unhappy speak up much louder than the happy.

Voting against is a stronger signal than voting for. Whether it has some unforeseen clusterfuck side-effects... I dunno.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=500356 time=1614787264 user_id=11800]
[quote=commonsense post_id=500340 time=1614784770 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=500270 time=1614744011 user_id=15238]
All eligible candidates are on the ballot. Every citizen votes by vetoing as many as they want. Whoever gets the fewest vetoes wins, and second fewest is vice president.
[/quote]

...as many as they want...? How would that work?
[/quote]
Much like actively not celebrating celebrating 364 unbirthdays a year.

The notion proposed in the OP is a lazy form of ranked choice voting where you don't bother setting preferences, and just put all the people you can stand the sight of into an undifferentiated bucket. Then at the end of the election someone compares all those lazy undifferentiated buckets, and picks the blandest candidate who actively offended nobody and was target of the least negative advertising.
[/quote]

You're assuming insufficient criteria for candidates in the first place, and that's a separate issue.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=500353 time=1614786756 user_id=14610]
So I could veto more or less candidates than you might choose to do. You’re pulling my leg, aren’t you.
[/quote]

Why does this seem problematic to you?

[Advocate]

In order to more accurately judge voters' involvement:

failure to register - the system is insufficient
register but no veto - apathetic
check box - "unable to decide"
register and veto all - none of the above
register and veto

Are there any other variations that could/should be accounted for?

[FlashDangerpants]

...as many as they want...? How would that work?

Much like actively not celebrating celebrating 364 unbirthdays a year.

The notion proposed in the OP is a lazy form of ranked choice voting where you don't bother setting preferences, and just put all the people you can stand the sight of into an undifferentiated bucket. Then at the end of the election someone compares all those lazy undifferentiated buckets, and picks the blandest candidate who actively offended nobody and was target of the least negative advertising.

You're assuming insufficient criteria for candidates in the first place, and that's a separate issue.

What does that even mean?

[Walker]

All eligible candidates are on the ballot. Every citizen votes by vetoing as many as they want. Whoever gets the fewest vetoes wins, and second fewest is vice president.

That's a lot of folks since there's only 3 requirement to be a POTUS.

If the credentials are meaningful the list will be manageable.

Since the topic is theoretical, then in a theoretically fair world such credentials would not include a career of corruption, being rescued from the trash heap of politics by Obama, followed by mental decline … which for some strange reason are actually qualities that turned out the largest vote for a president, by far, in the history of the United States, while his party simultaneously took a hit in Congressional and state elections.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=500383 time=1614793485 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=500375 time=1614791324 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=500356 time=1614787264 user_id=11800]

Much like actively not celebrating celebrating 364 unbirthdays a year.

The notion proposed in the OP is a lazy form of ranked choice voting where you don't bother setting preferences, and just put all the people you can stand the sight of into an undifferentiated bucket. Then at the end of the election someone compares all those lazy undifferentiated buckets, and picks the blandest candidate who actively offended nobody and was target of the least negative advertising.
[/quote]

You're assuming insufficient criteria for candidates in the first place, and that's a separate issue.
[/quote]
What does that even mean?
[/quote]

It means that being the least objectionable of Actually Qualified contestants is perfectly sufficient and it prevents the maximum number of side-problems.