"None of the above" on ballot papers

[Undesired Walrus]

I've seen this discussed plenty of times over the years, and it does sound like an exciting addition to the ballot paper. The only problem I see with it is this:

What do you do if 51% vote for 'None of the above'? Do you recognise this, and hold another election with different candidates, or would you obey the people's wishes on that election day and have nobody governing for the next four/five years?

How many elections are held with NOTA winning until the constituency just gives up?

[DC]

cant you write in a Name you would like to vote for that isnt on the list above?

[Rolfe]

What good would that do you? Unless that "Name" had campaigned and canvassed support, then everybody who did that would be writing a different Name. And if you are going to campaign and canvass support, you might as well be on the ballot paper in the first place.

UW makes a very valid point. If you want to say explicitly that you don't like any of the choices, what do you propose doing about it? Would you stand for election yourself if you think you can make a better job of it? Or do you just want to sit in your playpen sucking your thumb and throwing your toys out?

Rolfe.

[DC]

UW makes a very valid point.

sure didnt doubt that. just wondered.

[MarkCorrigan]

I think this suggestion is really rather stupid. It's a childish view that somehow if we disagree with the options presented we can vote that we think the main parties should give up and try again. Yeah! That'll show 'em!

No, it really won't. It's a pointless waste of time. I really fail to see how it's "exciting" in any way.

What the hell would it actually accomplish?

[Lothian]

I have spoiled a few papers in the past. I wanted somehow to express the fact that I was not disinterested in politics but didn’t support those standing. I generally wrote “I do not support any of these candidates" across the paper.

Trouble is you are recorded with those who want to vote but are too inept to understand the instructions.

[Michael Redman]

"none of the above" means "I was too lazy to pay attention and get involved earlier".

[Professor Yaffle]

I think every constituency should have a candidate from a joke type party (eg monster raving loonies) as a way to express none of the above. Then the other political parties would suddenly get plenty worried if the level of "none of the above" voters reached a majority.

[Rasmus]

"none of the above" means "I was too lazy to pay attention and get involved earlier".

I hear that a lot and I don't think it makes sense at all.

I don't need the ability to do something myself, or do it better than somebody else did for me to be able to recognize a bad job when I see it.

If I pay a guy to come and fix my bathroom I am fully qualified to observe that since he flooded the house he did a bad job and is not suited to do further work for me.

It does not at all follow that it is my job because I chose a career other than plumber, though.

[Rolfe]

However, if you are given the choice between all the plumbers in your location, and these guys have exerted themselves for several weeks to persuade you that they can fix your bathroom, at the end of it all are you just going to say, sorry, don't fancy any of you, and just live with the leak?

Rolfe.

[Undesired Walrus]

I think ballot spoiling does the job just as well (If it aint broke etc). They still recognise them at the count.

I think Soapy Sam advocates this policy, so maybe s/he can drop in and offer their opinion?

[Rolfe]

It opens an interesting question. Politicians are frequently reviled. People are even shy of stating their party political preferences, never mind actual membership of a party, for fear of being associated with such a dirty game.

But what does this do to the calibre of people who enter politics? Yes, there are people of principle who really want to improve the lives of their fellow-citizens, but there are also those who simply want to climb aboard the gravy train. Recently, it sems to me there's been a skew to the latter. Politics isn't seen as honourable public service, but as a bunch of porkers with their snouts in the trough.

And yet we need politicians. We need a government. How do we get good people in the government when we're only attracting the gravy-train riders?

Rolfe.

[23_Tauri]

I think ballot spoiling does the job just as well (If it aint broke etc). They still recognise them at the count.
Yes good point UW, and spoilt papers are seen by all the candidates, because they have to agree with the election officials that they are indeed spoilt and not a vote for a particular candidate. This means that 'spoiling' a ballot paper with a specific message is a good way to get your point across. This doesn't have to be "none of the above" but could refer to a particular issue close to your heart that you feel all the candidates have ignored, for example.

[Agatha]

I do see some argument in spoiling a ballot paper deliberately, but I have never done it and doubt I ever will. There's always a 'least worst' option even if there isn't a candidate on the ballot whom you feel will fully represent your views.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm looking forward to at least some reform of the voting system with the hopeful referendum in 2011 of AV (Although I'd prefer AV+). It really reforms the old 'wasted vote' scenario (Given that your vote can still count even if you gave your first preference to the person who came last, depending on who you gave your second preference to). If it were there now, I'd probably be giving the Liberals a second place on the sheet.

One large thing that stops me from voting for the Liberal Democrats this year is their support for a PR system that I believe does away with directly appointed MPs .

[Dave Rogers]

However, if you are given the choice between all the plumbers in your location, and these guys have exerted themselves for several weeks to persuade you that they can fix your bathroom, at the end of it all are you just going to say, sorry, don't fancy any of you, and just live with the leak?

Rolfe.

Well, if I think that every one of them is so incompetent that I'm more likely to get a severed water main than a repaired leak, that would actually be the best choice. But that's maybe a reason why the analogy isn't exact; we don't really have a realistic no-government option.

I'm not convinced, though, that there is such a thing as an entirely wasted vote. Electoral candidates aren't stupid enough to think that the people who voted for them will always vote for them, or that the people who voted some other way will also always do so. A Labour candidate who sees support moving from Conservatives to Liberal Democrats will be able to infer that his own party's policies should maybe have more similarity to Liberal Democrat than to Conservative policies if they're to attract more support. A candidate, therefore, who sees a large proportion of NOTA votes can see that none of the candidates are offering what voters really want, so there's a huge opportunity for garnering votes by simply finding out what's missing.

If you believe that democracy is a dictatorship by the elected party - which, at some times, it can approximate - then everyone who voted for an unsuccessful candidate is disenfranchised. In a broader view, it makes sense to give a clearer picture of why those who didn't vote for the winner chose not to do so. NOTA can help deliver that picture.

Dave

[Lothian]

One large thing that stops me from voting for the Liberal Democrats this year is their support for a PR system that I believe does away with directly appointed MPs .I think there are directly appointed MPs under most PR systems. I don’t think the Lib Dems have decided which version they are going for. Their website says “. By giving
voters the choice between people as well as parties, it means they can stick with a party but punish a bad MP by voting for someone else.”

I suspect that they will go for the top up system we get in Euro elections where there are a number of MPs for an area. First past the post always gets in. The remainder allocated according to relative popularity.

[Michael Redman]

I think every constituency should have a candidate from a joke type party (eg monster raving loonies) as a way to express none of the above.
We tried that in Minnesota. We ended up with Governor Jesse Ventura.

[funk de fino]

cant you write in a Name you would like to vote for that isnt on the list above?

Like Hugo Chavez perhaps

:rolleyes:

[Michael Redman]

I hear that a lot and I don't think it makes sense at all.

I don't need the ability to do something myself, or do it better than somebody else did for me to be able to recognize a bad job when I see it.

If I pay a guy to come and fix my bathroom I am fully qualified to observe that since he flooded the house he did a bad job and is not suited to do further work for me.

It does not at all follow that it is my job because I chose a career other than plumber, though.
It isn't your job to be a politician, but it is your job to participate in your democracy.

The citizens are responsible for putting the candidates on the ballot, not the incumbants. Saying "none of the above" is not saying that the incumbants have not done their job, it is saying that the citizens have not done theirs.

[DC]

Like Hugo Chavez perhaps

:rolleyes:

reported OT

[ddt]

I think there are directly appointed MPs under most PR systems. I don’t think the Lib Dems have decided which version they are going for. Their website says “. By giving
voters the choice between people as well as parties, it means they can stick with a party but punish a bad MP by voting for someone else.”

I suspect that they will go for the top up system we get in Euro elections where there are a number of MPs for an area. First past the post always gets in. The remainder allocated according to relative popularity.

Voting systems depend very much around the world.

Holland has a nearly pure PR system for parties; but as you still vote for a candidate, a lower-ranked candidate can still get in if s/he gets enough preferential votes.

Belgium has a system like you use with the European elections: multiple seat districts.

Germany has a mixed system, with a PR result in number of seats. A voter casts two votes: the first for a district candidate, and that's FPTP. Those seats make up half of the German parliament. The second vote goes to a party list. The second half of parliament is then filled in such a way that the total distribution of seats in parliament reflects the second vote.

I must say I never quite understood the charm of a pure district system. A fairly large third party as the LibDems has always been very underrepresented, and smaller parties like the Greens don't stand a chance at all to ever make it to Westminster.

[andyandy]

I've seen this discussed plenty of times over the years, and it does sound like an exciting addition to the ballot paper. The only problem I see with it is this:

What do you do if 51% vote for 'None of the above'? Do you recognise this, and hold another election with different candidates, or would you obey the people's wishes on that election day and have nobody governing for the next four/five years?

How many elections are held with NOTA winning until the constituency just gives up?

You would have a rule that a new by-election was required within (say) 3 months. That would give the parties time to get their acts together and try and find some candidates that the population actually wanted to votes for....

[andyandy]

I think this suggestion is really rather stupid. It's a childish view that somehow if we disagree with the options presented we can vote that we think the main parties should give up and try again. Yeah! That'll show 'em!

No, it really won't. It's a pointless waste of time. I really fail to see how it's "exciting" in any way.

What the hell would it actually accomplish?

it's democracy as it should be. If I said to you

"Do you like spinach, brussel sprouts or anchovis?"

Then depending on your inclination you might actually like to answer "none of them". And if it becomes apparent that all the options are disliked, then that is a catalyst for some better options - maybe we'll get chips next time....;)

[GreyArea]

What do you do if 51% vote for 'None of the above'? Do you recognise this, and hold another election with different candidates,...
Yes, that's the process I've heard suggested in the U.S. I don't know what folks have in mind where you live.

NOTA without recognition would simply give the victory to whichever candidate got the second largest number of votes. That's not much of an endorsement, especially when losing to an empty space.


...or would you obey the people's wishes on that election day and have nobody governing for the next four/five years?
No. Although that's an interesting idea. :D If you didn't have an individual win office against "NOTA", maybe you could interpret that as the electorate preferring the job for themselves. Mandate that that electorate vote in referendum on every piece of legislation in the office-holder's stead. That would probably temper enthusiasm for NOTA being the last word.


How many elections are held with NOTA winning until the constituency just gives up?

If the party leaders are smart enough, they won't make the mistake a second time.

Or you could set a limit by law. Perhaps allow only one re-try election.

[Giz]

it's democracy as it should be. If I said to you

"Do you like spinach, brussel sprouts or anchovis?"

Then depending on your inclination you might actually like to answer "none of them". And if it becomes apparent that all the options are disliked, then that is a catalyst for some better options - maybe we'll get chips next time....;)

Well, I quite like spinach and anchovies so I guess I am ok with the current system.

(Hmmmm, brussels sprouts…. Brussels… I guess that represents the LibDems?)

Besides, if you think there is a latent desire for better options - why don't you form (or encourage the formation of) the Chips n' Ice Cream Party?

On a serious note, I do think that politicians will generally ignore spoiled votes and that your protest will be largely unheard. Better to vote in such a way that it encourages "good" trends in parties and punishes "bad" trends. (i.e. say - and people feel free to disagree here - voting for New Labour/ against the Tories in 1997, and for the Conservatives/ against Labour in 2010) (obviously no votes for Brussel sprouts).

[ddt]

You would have a rule that a new by-election was required within (say) 3 months. That would give the parties time to get their acts together and try and find some candidates that the population actually wanted to votes for....
Or leave the seat vacant. Hungary does that. Part of their seats are single seat districts. If voter turnout is under 50% in the first round, they have a second round two weeks later. If then voter turnout is under 25%, the seat remains vacant.

I agree that NOTA is a more conscious statement than not turning up at the ballot box, but the idea is the same.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Belgium (a fragile and short union of different cultures) had no government for over 150 days a few years ago. I don't think anyone really noticed, even in Belgium.:)

In the UK I don't think we'd notice 643 fewer politicians for several months at the very least. In fact, if we believe many MPs' when they claim they could be earning far more in the private sector then perhaps we should free up these beacons of industry for a while to help balance the UK's books.

[INRM]

The NOTA option could be abused by those in power. Stuff ballot boxes with enough NOTA's and those in power could stay in power until they die so long as they could keep stuffing the ballot boxes with NOTA's.

Of course I don't know what the odds of that happening are

[Rolfe]

Slim to non-existent, in anywhere with a half-developed electoral system.

Rolfe.

[Undesired Walrus]

I suspect that they will go for the top up system we get in Euro elections where there are a number of MPs for an area. First past the post always gets in. The remainder allocated according to relative popularity.

But in the Euro elections you only vote for the parties though? The party that is elected selects their own candidates to stand in that seat.

[Darat]

...snip.. Recently, it sems to me there's been a skew to the latter. Politics isn't seen as honourable public service, but as a bunch of porkers with their snouts in the trough.

And yet we need politicians. We need a government. How do we get good people in the government when we're only attracting the gravy-train riders?

Rolfe.

I think that "recent" thing is just a perception, for example do you really think MPs back in the days when they didn't need receipts for anything were all so honest? The issue is that politicians today are under much more scrutiny than their predecessors so much more is coming to light not that politicians have fundamentally changed from being principled to being greedy-pigs.

Given the scrutiny that politicians now come under I think we will find that we will (and quite soon) have a higher percentage that are in it for the "right" reasons simply because those that aren't won't be hidden any longer.

[Lothian]

But in the Euro elections you only vote for the parties though? The party that is elected selects their own candidates to stand in that seat.Similar to the general election. The local party selects their candidate.

In European Elections the Candidates are listed prior to the election. Candidates only stand in one constituency. The winner gets elected. Top ups decide how many others will represent that area. There is nothing to stop people standing as an independent if they choose.

I accept it is more complicated that FPTP. I think I was addressing a point that said there were not directly appointed MPs under PR. I am not entirely sure what was meant by that but I assumed it to be saying that you simply voted for a party. Then after the election each party decided who its MPs would be and which parts of the country they would represent. I don’t think many PR systems work that way. In my area we have had the same three MPS for the last 2 Euro elections, two of them for the last 3 elections.

[ddt]

I am not entirely sure what was meant by that but I assumed it to be saying that you simply voted for a party. Then after the election each party decided who its MPs would be and which parts of the country they would represent. I don’t think many PR systems work that way.
It would be very weird elections if you could vote for a party list without knowing which candidates they'd field. I guess all around the world, parties have to present their list(s) of candidates prior to the elections.

[Undesired Walrus]

Similar to the general election. The local party selects their candidate.


Ah, but you vote for the party on the ballot paper, not for the individual candidates.

What if you are a liberal, pro-Europe, pro-Climate Conservative who votes for a similar Conservative candidate standing in your area, only to be confronted with the problem that Daniel Hannan is also standing in your area? If you want your candidate, you will have to tick X in the Conservative box. Unfortunately, this has the disadvantage of helping out something you really disagree with -Hannan- get a seat of his own.

[Lothian]

Ah, but you vote for the party on the ballot paper, not for the individual candidates.

What if you are a liberal, pro-Europe, pro-Climate Conservative who votes for a similar Conservative candidate standing in your area, only to be confronted with the problem that Daniel Hannan is also standing in your area? If you want your candidate, you will have to tick X in the Conservative box. Unfortunately, this has the disadvantage of helping out something you really disagree with -Hannan- get a seat of his own.But who tops the list is down to the local party, they decide who is the first choice.

If it was first past the post the constituencies would be smaller and with one candidate you would have nobody to vote for (assuming Hannan was selected).

I know there have been similar issues with Labour in the UK parliamentary system. The new and old labourites wanted an MP of their faction.

[Undesired Walrus]

Couldn't you have a choice though, with:


Michael O'Liberal-Tory



Sally Majorite


Daniel Hannan

And you put a cross in the box, rather than


Conservative

?

[Lothian]

Couldn't you have a choice though, with:


Michael O'Liberal-Tory



Sally Majorite


Daniel Hannan

And you put a cross in the box, rather than


Conservative

?Not under the system used but I think there are PR variations that would.

[KingMerv00]

"none of the above" means "I was too lazy to pay attention and get involved earlier".

So if Jabba the Hutt was running against Josef Mengele, I'd be morally obligated to vote for one of them?

...Actually, I would like to see the political ads in that race.