Negative voting numbers

If I had a choice, I would vote against someone as apposed to for someone. It would be nice to pick the worst candidate and vote against them. Having this ability would prompt positive campaigning.  I think in today's world of instant communication and easy research, the negative vote would play on people's propensity to complain. "I don't like any of the candidates on any side." I'm hearing this all over the place.

"None of the above" comes to mind. I forget which party put that on their ballot. If no one won a majority, the office remained empty. Not sure that works on the large scale.

I wonder what kind of problems would come up. If all the candidates have a negative number at the end, then the one with the least number of negatives would either win, or the vote would have to be redone. or something. If you were a candidate, who no one knew about, for example, in some races you could just keep your mouth shut and win by lack of attention. That would be bad. There must be other negatives to negative voting numbers. Perhaps a rule of zero is as low as you can go would work. Or, negative vote is only worth half a positive vote. The numbers could still hit zero quickly.

If this were to be implemented, people would want to split their vote. 80% for A and 20% for B. Now you are getting in to the area of thinking. People have proven they cannot punch a hole in a sheet of paper.  Perhaps all of this is simply too many options for the average Joe/Jane to handle.