Vote for none of the above
"Get Out!"
This should be the resounding theme coming from the general populace.
Do you like the ideas coming from the Republicans? From the Democrats?
I, for one, don't like the ideas that I hear from either side because they are mostly designed to entrench one or the other in power. Prove me wrong.
I have spent a great deal of time interacting with various form of AI over the past several years. The bulk of my time has been spent on ChatGPT. So I prompted it:
Could you give me a list of the main points that I personally stand for given our past interactions relating to government and individuals
To which it replied:
Based on our past discussions, your views on government and the individual seem to revolve around several recurring principles. Not party doctrines so much as structural and philosophical positions:
Government derives legitimacy from the consent of individuals, not from institutional permanence
You repeatedly return to the idea that public office is borrowed authority, not ownership. Officials, parties, agencies, and institutions exist to serve the public, not perpetuate themselves.Rights are only meaningful if they are actively protected and enforceable
You have questioned abstract claims about “unalienable rights” absent mechanisms that preserve them. Your position appears to be that rights are not self-executing metaphysical objects. They survive only through societal commitment, institutional restraint, and public vigilance.Institutions naturally drift toward self-preservation and consolidation of power
Whether discussing political parties, bureaucracies, corporations, or activist organizations, you often focus on how organizations tend to protect themselves first, sometimes at the expense of their stated principles.Accountability requires turnover and challenge
You appear skeptical of entrenched incumbency, dynastic politics, and political careerism. You seem to view periodic disruption, electoral replacement, and competitive pressure as necessary maintenance mechanisms in a republic.The individual should not be collapsed into group identity
This is one of your strongest recurring themes. You consistently resist broad-brush moral or intellectual claims about races, sexes, parties, religions, or ideological blocs. You separate persons from categories and opinions from intrinsic worth.Assertions require evidence, especially sweeping claims
A major part of your argumentative style is demanding causal links and rejecting unsupported extrapolation. You repeatedly attack circular reasoning, definitional substitution, narrative laundering, and claims that smuggle conclusions into premises.Language matters because language shapes thought
You spend considerable time examining wording choices, framing devices, euphemisms, doublespeak, and rhetorical substitution. You appear to believe manipulation often begins with altered terminology rather than outright factual falsification.Free discussion is socially necessary, even when uncomfortable
You consistently defend open discourse and appear wary of systems that suppress dissent through social pressure, institutional labeling, or ideological conformity.Democracy is weakened when voters are governed primarily through fear
Your “None of the Above” line of reasoning strongly suggests you believe modern politics often functions through coercive lesser-evil framing rather than genuine representation.Truthfulness requires both factual accuracy and candor
You repeatedly distinguish between technical factual correctness and honest presentation. A statement can be selectively framed, misleading by omission, emotionally manipulative, or contextually distorted while remaining superficially “true.”Systems should remain subordinate to human reality
Whether discussing corporations, bureaucracies, political narratives, or databases, you tend to resist treating abstractions as more important than the actual human beings and real-world conditions they are supposed to represent.Skepticism is healthy, but cynicism is incomplete
You are clearly distrustful of power structures, yet you still engage heavily in discussion, analysis, institutional design, and civic questions. That suggests you have not abandoned the idea that systems can be improved, only that they should never be treated as inherently virtuous.A concise synthesis might be:
You appear to believe that free societies survive only when individuals remain capable of questioning power, resisting institutional capture, demanding evidence, and refusing to surrender moral or intellectual agency to parties, movements, bureaucracies, or tribal identities.
I am not sure what to say here. The AI has, I believe, accurately framed my proclivities. Indeed:
Writing in “None of the Above” is not apathy. It is not disengagement. It is an explicit act of refusal. It is the voter stating that legitimacy is earned, not automatically granted by party nomination, media exposure, or ballot access.
Modern elections often function less as affirmative choices than as exercises in managed fear: vote for us because the other side is worse. Cycle after cycle, voters are pressured into accepting candidates they would never voluntarily select under the argument that the alternative is catastrophic. Over time, this creates a political environment where standards continually erode because parties learn they do not need to inspire confidence, competence, or integrity. They only need to convince voters to fear the opposition slightly more.
The parties, both of them, have us on the edge of our seats waiting for the next piece of crap to drop out of someone's mouth...
Turn on. Tune in. Drop out.
The meaning of these words has changed over the years to the point where there are lots of people who have turned off but havent found the correct place to to "tune in" to. But there are a whole bunch of people who for money or power want us to tune in to them...
Think for yourself. Trust in goodness. Question Authority. If you are hurting someone, back up and rethink what you are doing. Repeat.
Now I am feeling rather velleitious ....
IF you gotta load , or if you gotta unload, Go to the white zone.
Frank Zappa, Joe's Garage act 1
let me know when the catholic girls show up ...
...in the little white dress...
If you are doing it right, they are showing up more than the alter boys.... OH. SHIT. I am going to get in trouble for that one...
Just call me Epstein...
Or should I say:
I love how they go. So send me a dozen....
they're learning to blow at the CYO ...
father riley's a fairy, but that don't bother mary ...
None of the above should be a choice for all elections except President and County Sheriff because we have to have a president, and Counties need an elected Sheriff.
In all other cases if None of the above wins the office must remain vacant until the next election. Senator, Representative, Governor, Mayor, ect we can do without and might be better off without
What about Town and County Supervisors? They play a large role in the functioning of local governmental agencies facing the population at large.
This blog was posted as an opportunity to theorize and think realistically about an alternative to today's depressingly nationally influenced politics.
So, what do you think?
None of the above, with threat of empty offices, might lead to better canidates
How would this, in your view, lead to better candidates?
Wont ever happen , all that would be needed to fill an office is one vote .
Unless none of the above is a valid choice like any other ballot choice, aka Brewsters Millions.
We'll never see it of course, but it makes for a nice dream.
If voters choose to leave office vacant over who parties runs it might give them the message to find somebody better. It might give voters some real power
Law about None of above selection would have say office stays vacant and no appointments allowed
The real power voters need is to do good, right, and justice for all in their findings and conclusions. Also, what is lacking here is that people can OUTRIGHT LIE and FEIGN IGNORANCE in telling the public about candidates such that the public is confused about what Truth is about candidates in the pool they must choose. That should be 'monitored' by independent parties, because a great many good candidates are dropped or lose to LOUSES that can 'expertly' tell lies with the best of them!
you need a utopia. none on the horizon.
Is a utopia somewhere that the people can think for themselves?
All of the characteristics ascribed to me by AI are what I feel the populace at large should be looking at and asking of themselves, their elected officials, all of the time.
it's a stall in a rest room ...
When there are only 2 real options, don't go with the mentally ill tyrant or the party he has wholly captured.
Voting for a third option or 'none of the above' equates to a voting for traitors to the Republic.
At some point Donald Trump will be gone from politics.
Assuming that he has not managed to pervert the Constitution to the point of uselessness due to his incessant redefining of terms that have been static for decades or centuries, how are we to proceed?
Constitutional Convention? Amendment?
Some aspect of the political calculus needs to change: Congress has abrogated it's responsibility in deference of presidential power, The Supreme Court gives pennance with a wink and a nod, Money flows from who-knows-where into campaign coffers because of the myth of Corporate Personhood, Gerrymandering is considered blase as long as it is only for "party" and not for race...
Some rules based changes need to occur. Definitions need to be spelled out. The current situation is untenable and should be corrected ASAP.
I used to like being American.
I did too. And I am being honest when I say that I am so dejected to learn that there are 'forces' in this country that persist in wanting to go back to the IGNORANCE of the past. . . when our government APOLOGIZED for harms done out of lack of ENLIGHTMENT (advancement in consciousness). . . these forces seem to think "the crooked path" got us to the preeminence we have in the world today. I suggest to these "thinkers" that our nation became the world leader DESPITE our callous treatment of its citizenry.
Therefore, we are behind where we could be if only they would stop and join TRUTH in dealing with every citizen—leaving no one behind.
Most often no, and no, depending on the topic.
I can't prove wrong that which is painfully and abundantly obvious.
I am all for seeing a government that represents the people in the "center", and by "center" I mean those willing to make an effort to weigh the facts, think logically and clearly about what those facts mean, and then arrive at rational and reasonable opinions or conclusions without allowing peer pressure, fear, or excessive emotion to guide one's actions or votes. As we succumb to identity politics, group-think, tribalism, or rabid partisan-ship we begin to lose that individualism upon which western society, human rights, and the very concept of liberty are based. In a just society the maintenance of "rights" and "liberty" requires individual effort, diligence, responsibility, and accountability as the backbone of "societal commitment" and "public vigilance".
Amen to that brother! And that is the key to achieving effective, productive, governance.
I am not certain though that if the individual merely votes for "None of the Above" that the individual's voice is heard, and that proper governance will result. In my mind, we need to seek potential leaders who fully understand your paragraph above, see to it that their names appear on the ballot, if not as official candidates, then at least as write-ins, and then back them strongly with our votes. This is likely not going to be an overnight success, but voting for the lesser of two evils (just because of the current two party dominance) is clearly an immediate failure. We have to start somewhere. The fact that more and more folks are registering as independent voters not affiliated with the two current major parties is a great sign, but merely a foundation upon which successful change must be built. We need to put our money where our mouth is, so to speak. And actions speak louder than words.
Would that not be nice? Maybe even preferable.
We used to have "norms" and "standards" to which political aspirants were beholden. The terms which you reference are not applicable to the politics of today. Societal Commitment? You must be kidding. Rights? Liberty? The current administration does not, by their own admission, consider these terms in their generation of policy. "What's in it for me, personally" is a much better way of stating anything that the administration says. It is as short sighted and detrimental to the nation's cause as you can get. But Donald Trump does not seem to care, as long as he is enriched by the process. Apparently in his opinion America can go rot, just as long as he turns a fleeting dollar off the prospect.
My suggestion of "None of The Above" was more of an open plea for sanity in the political processes of the country.
I am sorry, I got hit with a moment of truthfulness./s
Those are all terms from your ChatGPT derived bullet point 2 in your article, supposedly describing your position on rights, including unalienable rights. My point is that terms like "rights" and "liberty" are centered on the idea that the human desire for individual freedom, autonomy, self-determination, and free association is paramount. Such terms are meaningless without the individuals to whom they apply and it is incumbent on those individuals to use and protect those concepts/freedoms in a rational, reasonable and responsible way. The individual in free association with others is what builds a "society" or "institutions". So "societal commitment" or "public vigilance" is rooted in the individual commitment to protect basic human rights and maintain personal liberty. If we as individuals fail to actively support that ideal or surrender parts or all of our autonomy and self-determination to others, then the whole thing decays and crumbles.
When? Before the two parties became so entrenched you mean? Before their jockeying for power became more important than the job of representing the people? When did that start do you think? To the extent that we keep giving in and following along with such poor representation, and a further departure from the founding principles, things will continue to get worse.
No argument from me about that my friend. No doubt a huge swing in the wrong direction, but not an entirely new development in our ever worsening two party power struggle and divide. Policies are a good litmus. Which support the idea that the human desire for individual freedom, autonomy, self-determination, and free association is paramount, and which do not? Which encourage folks to give up freedoms or self-determination for empty promises, and which do not. Which make it more difficult for individuals to rationally pursue that which they desire, and which do not?
I certainly get that. I'm just saying that voting "None of the Above" is an individual act that seems more like a passive protest than an active one. We must each work hard to build the representative leadership we desire, and stop expecting or hoping that others will do it for us.
People/citizen, 'group' for collective power to be heard and even taken seriously in their propositions to Government. It was something President Washington observed at the end of his presidential years. . . that groups/cliques were forming in the Congressional branch of the United States. Then, it went to partisanship between conservative groups and progressive groups. . . later becoming "open" political fights between political groups about (of all things) racial matters or Color.
Well, it gotten deeper and worse ever since. So there is where we can 'start.'
Thank you for responding.
I used no AI in my response. It is all me, warts not withstanding.
I agree,100%. A foundation is required to construct upon.
These are the foundational elements:
Citizens.
Individuals.
Laws to direct the interplay of each.
Much like the individual atoms and molecules in a crystalline solid. But we have these free radicals (if you will) who do not play by these ordered and structured rules. Money is their Oxygen and they have little regard how their actions affect the body politic as a whole. The politicians just do not care. They are as a cancerous tumor: they grow without regard to their surroundings. The individuals of whom you speak, the ones who are supposed to protect these concepts are as the dust motes in the eyes of of giants: They do not and cannot effect stabilization. They are just along for the ride until something completely seismic happens and forms them into a group, a mass.
I vacillate between optimistic hope and deep despondence.
Exactly.
We have outsourced our autonomy and given away our self determination to people who do not have our best interests at heart. This is the problem, succinctly. Because "We the People" have allowed others to say "This is what the voters said'" when that might be far from the truth of the matter, politicians can then say, "I was elected to do this" whether or not that is the case.
There are things that we, us, you and I can do as individuals to help direct this blind giant. Call and write your representatives, all of them, multiple times if necessary, informing them of your desires.
It started in the year 1, or 1789 for our country, as far as I can tell. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. " To which I ask, "How much of this shit are we going to take?" People are getting fed up with the various Trump antics, but that is just because gas is more expensive and that is still abstract. The majority of people in this country just don't get it. It is all a big game show that they see on their endless scrolls through whatever.
Have a good evening my friend. I have to get off of here before I get too angry. May the best be yours forever.
"None of the Above" has always been an option. It's not necessary to vote for someone in every race. Unfortunately in today's corrupt partisan environment failing to vote for candidates in one race could spoil the entire ballot.
Adding a specific "None of the Above" option doesn't necessarily mean it will be reported. Reporting consistently is based upon number of votes counted rather than the number of ballots cast. Currently the non-votes (equivalent to "None of the Above") are not reported for specific races. The reported voter turnout used to also provide some idea of the "None of the Above" sentiment of the electorate but even that reporting has been tainted by partisan biases.
Seems to me it would be better to demand better reporting on election results than expending effort on a gimmick that can only highlight what is already available. Better reporting would ensure the public is informed of the "None of the Above" results and better inform voters of their options. Would that have a better chance of encouraging voters to participate in government?
I think we should have a "We do not know what the fuck you are talking about" category
"None of these candidates" in Nevada won in 1976 and 2014. It was not the end of the story, however. The "Next' highest candidate got the victory. (Credit: Alexa.)
put NOTA on ballots for every office, and if NOTA wins, disqualify the other opposing candidates for a special election to be held within 90 days.
You're not wrong. However, I will be voting for the candidate that I think has the best chance of winning that isn't pushing a rightwing conservative Christian agenda (or any other theocracy agenda).
"But isn't that voting against something rather than for something?" some may ask.
Yes. Yes it is, because I believe the greatest threat to this nation are those whose loyalties lay not with our constitution but with their interpretation of archaic bronze age sheep herders' visions and believe that it's only a matter of time before they and their God will wipe out or convert all their enemies which include millions of other American citizens. I do not think those kinds of people should be in any positions of political power, especially not the Presidency, due to the obvious inclination to create self-fulfilling (and self-serving) prophecies not unlike they do in Iran.
The thing is, many believers in "archaic bronze age . . .visions. . . " also may be conservative (and liberals and progressives too) and yet do not believe it a duty and responsibility of Christians and other believers to suppress civil and personal liberties and freedoms of Others. Millions of believers believe in the 'sanctity' of minding their own business and. . . while offering to share their faith. . . won't strive to 'defeat' others into believing or not having any other alternative.
Of course. Under the current regime, there is not much else that one can do. What about post Trump?