None of the above.

Hagar

Premise: Include on every polling card, in addition to the candidates running for the particular office, the option to vote for "None of the Above".

It has been suggested before but I wonder what would the actual implications of such a radical move be? How would re-elections be arranged? How much back room dealing would go on to find someone the electorate really wants? Would it undermine totally the idea of party politics as we know it? Most importantly of all, would it be a good thing for the Nation as a whole?

For the purposes of this thread let's assume that we have an electronic vote counting system that would allow us to have an election re-count quickly enough to make the premise viable.

Naturally all current office holders would oppose this as they could find themselves out of a job. It can be argued that anarchists could vote this way to undermine the current system, but if they did wouldn't that be a democratic decision of the people? How could/would it work in reality? Would we actually spur our representatives to a minimum level of achivement in office? Would we drive our politicians to serve us better?

I'm interested in your opinion on this. Leave party politics aside as it should force each party to put forward a better candidate each time so it should be a more or less level playing field.

The_Minister

How would that work in a PR system?
Say the result was:
1. FF
2. FG
3. PD
None of the Above
4. SF

Would the Sinner have to re-run?

ballooba

DIT had this in SU elections. I used it a few times. Don't remember if it ever resulted in a re-election.

Hagar

Interesting point. I suppose NOTA would have to remain in contention as long as there was a candidate above and so would not be eliminated until all the seats had been filled regardless of counts along the way.

Judt

Well just look at Portugal and its abortion referendum - it might be invalid because there was only 40% voter turnout. Your manner of voting "None of the Above" is to not vote, therefore you count against the voter turnout. What's our voter turnout, or lack thereof, at these days?

The_Minister

ballooba wrote:

DIT had this in SU elections. I used it a few times. Don't remember if it ever resulted in a re-election.

So does UCD. I understand how it works if there is only one winner, but what if there is more than one?

Dalfiatach

And could NOTA get transfers? Not as mad as it first sounds: you might give one politician a #1, then NOTA a #2. Effectively saying that if yer #1 doesn't get a seat, you are actively opposed to all the other candidates.

While I like the idea on a superficial level, we need to ponder what happens when NOTA wins a seat! A single-seat by-election where all the previous candidates are barred from standing? Re-run the entire election in that constituency? Our system of multi-seat PR is actually very rare in the world, IIRC only Malta uses the same system as we do. The NOTA option is simple in a FPTP or single-seat PR election, but messy in ours.

ballooba

The_Minister wrote:

So does UCD. I understand how it works if there is only one winner, but what if there is more than one?

DIT had seperate ballots for each post. Ruled that out.

The structure has changed since I left as far as I know.

InFront

So does UCD. I understand how it works if there is only one winner, but what if there is more than one?

I think some guy called Ron gets elected.

Fratton Fred

not voting is as much a democratic right at voting, but the act of not voting is, imho, disrespectful to those who struggled to achieve democracy, so being able to vote, yet not vote is a good idea.

I'm not sure how this would work under the system used in Ireland though, would you, as stated above, be able to refuse the transfer of your ballot paper so you are, in effect casting one vote. in this case, there may be more chance of a single party in power rather than a coalition. Whether or not this is a good thing is a different question.

The_Minister

ballooba wrote:

DIT had seperate ballots for each post. Ruled that out.

Same in UCD. One president, one welfare officer etc.

But what if there is 3 seats in a constituency? 2 are filled before NATA wins. Do those two get in, and everyone else reruns in a second election? That means that everyone gets to vote again, even if their candidate won, so in effect, you would be condoning double-voting

Hagar

The_Minister wrote:

But what if there is 3 seats in a constituency? 2 are filled before NATA wins. Do those two get in, and everyone else reruns in a second election?

I would say those two get in and those who didn't get in are disqualified from that particular election. A body of new candidates is then put forward for the remaining seat with NOTA on the ballot paper again.
With electronic voting, stop laughing down the back, the process would be a bit speedier and easier to administer.

I can see a flaw in that everyone would have to cast a second vote but that is not inherently undemocratic as it applies across the board and results in the same number of representatives being elected by the same voters.