OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Say the "No" votes succeeded in stopping a candidate's win. Then what? Best case, you're left with someone else. Who is that someone else going to be? Its up to you by voting for that someone else, not just voting "no" on a candidate. Worst case, each candidate will have more "No" votes than "Yes" votes, and there will be no chosen leader.

Not quite. If your "No" vote stops the candidate C that you vigorously oppose, then you get what you want because one of the two you find acceptable, A or B will win. On the other hand, if you cannot vote NO, then if you vote for B, finding A nearly as acceptable, then C will have a better chance of winning. It's like getting to vote, "Either A or B" is fine with me.

And remember, the candidate with the highest net votes wins, even if that number could theoretically be less than zero.

So if there are two leading candidates, both equally like to win the election, and a third party candidate that is likely to have less than 10% of the vote who everyone ignores as a real candidate, he could very easily become elected. This would not be the will of any majority, or maybe any more than a very small minority.

Voting no makes sense on a single choice item, but in an election its more than a more than a matter of yes or no. Its a matter of who. Saying "not him/her" when there's many other options could lead to dangerous results.

Matthew, I believe you are correct--there is a dangerous downside. Thank you for pointing that out.

I'd prefer some find of preferential voting system.