One is the encumbant, vote against that one.
One is the opponent, vote for that one.
Here's the deal, politicians that aren't in office have no power, no fun, and no reason to live. So they desparately seek "being in office." (often times by making silly promises but that is another comment)
Now if you have a choice between a giant douche (GD) and a turd sandwich (TS) and you always vote against the incumbent. Then one of them (and often both of them) will start changing their behavior so that if they get into office they would stay there. You have the power to modify their behavior, use it.
Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%. So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your district?) they will create a better government for everyone.
They use a simple rule:
1) Person in office is doing a 'good' job? Vote for him
2) Person in office is doing a 'bad' job? Vote against him
It doesn't matter who is running against them or their qualifications. Because, like evolution, this system has its own fitness function (the 10% group think they are doing a 'good' job) which anyone running will quickly come to realize determines if they stay in office.
You can even start a campaign "I'm one of the 10% making a better government for you." And when you talk to your elected officials, and candidates for office, let them know the criteria you are using to determine 'good' and what it will take to stay in office.
The only way to defeat this system is with outright vote fraud which, as intelligent people, you should be able to help the election commission detect. No amount of special interests, no amount of campaign money, no amount of lying to the stupid people will work.
So use this system and always vote. It always matters.
The myth that the system works and that votes "always" (so much so that it deserves emphasis!) count is perpetuated by the people it is said to control. It doesn't matter if one candidate stays in office or if he is replaced by his twin brother, the system as a whole remains homogeneous and constant.
Give me a vote of no confidence and then I will vote. Otherwise the only thing your vote means is that you have faith in the system. Exactly what they want.
Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%.
So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this
game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your
district?) they will create a better government for
everyone.
It depends on the type of elections and the type of government. Yes, if you have a parliamentary government with proportional representation, this could work. However, if you relax either of those two constraints, the theory falls apart. For example, what if your country uses first-past-the-post voting? Now, its not 10% of voters deciding, but 10% of the districts. In order to influence the elect, you have first live in a "swing district". Given the level of gerrymandering here in the US, the chances of you living in such a district are very small indeed.
For example, lets take Minnesota's 6th District. Even an absolute loon like Bachmann can get elected there because the district is so heavily weighted towards Republicans, the Republican primary serves as a stand-in for the general election.
I'd like to see spoiled ballots counted in elections. That way those that want to vote - but don't believe in their candidates - could be heard in some fashion.
We do this in Australia. The Electoral Commission and its state-level equivalents publish "Informal votes" as part of the results. They are counted as part of the total turnout, but obviously do not go to a particular candidate.
In practice many Australians use these to lodge none-of-the-above votes.
