A "none of the above" option on ballot papers...

JC 2K3

After reading this thread, a thought has occurred to me. Should there be a "none of the above" option on ballot papers and should it actually count?

For example, say "none of the above" reaches the quota for election. This indicates that a high enough proportion of the constituency is not satisfied that any of the candidates are fit to represent them. I think, in that case, that another election should be held for every seat that is won by "none of the above" with only those who voted "none of the above" allowed vote.(Let's not get into how in the context of a secret ballot that it would be known who voted "none of the above", they could write who they were on the ballot paper, or an identity code or something like that.).

There are a few problems with this I know, I haven't thought it out fully, but what do you guys think?

barrett1965

Hi JC,

I mentioned something similar in a earlier thread. Basically, I felt I was criticised for suggesting it. I got responses telling me to go for election myself and was almost called unpatriotic - something I am definitely not! I think it's a good idea though.

Wishbone Ash

JC 2K3 wrote:

I haven't thought it out fully, but what do you guys think?

You seem to be under the impression that you are the first person to think of that. It has been raised at every election that I can remember and I think it would be a pointless waste of votes. It not as if these votes will cancel out the proper ones. :rolleyes:

JC 2K3

Lol, I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of it, I'm only 18, however, and have voted for the first time today, therefore thinking about such things is new to me.

And they might make a diference. I reckon there'd be a higher turnout if people knew that their opinion would actually be counted.

seamus

I don't think it can work in the transferable system.

I think it's massively appealing for other voting items where there can be only one winner (or one winner in an area) - referenda & presidential elections for example. If "None of the above" wins, then it all starts over. In the case of elections, anyone who ran originally is barred from running in the repeat ballot.
I would personally like to see this a required option by law. In the case of constitutional referenda, they should by law be required to include a "No change" option.

Wishbone Ash

JC 2K3 wrote:

I'm only 18, however, and have voted for the first time today, therefore thinking about such things is new to me.

Fair enough - well done.

JC 2K3 wrote:

I reckon there'd be a higher turnout if people knew that their opinion would actually be counted.

But it wouldn't matter if 90% ticked the "None of the above" box. The votes of the other 10%, who made a positive contribution, would be the only ones that mattered.

Wishbone Ash

seamus wrote:

In the case of constitutional referenda, they should by law be required to include a "No change" option.

But doesn't the 'status quo' remain if a proposal is defeated?

JC 2K3

You didn't read my first post properly.

If 90% of people voted "none of the above", there'd have to be another election with different candidates for the amount of seats that "none of the above" "won".

seamus

But doesn't the 'status quo' remain if a proposal is defeated?

Edit: It would appear that I was wrong. I was getting confused thinking of the situation where they include a number of unrelated changes in a single referendum.

JC 2K3 wrote:

If 90% of people voted "none of the above", there'd have to be another election with different candidates for the amount of seats that "none of the above" "won".

How long does this go on? What if we run out of candidates?

flogen

I think there should be a "none of the above"-type option, and one that is counted for posterity but not for the purpose of the vote itself.
To that end and in our system it should probably read "I have no preference".

That way, it's not a vote for no-one (as in a vote for an empty seat) but a simple indication that you do not think anyone deserves your preference.

The simple reason I believe in it is because a) it will act as a counteract to anyone refusing to vote because they don't think it matters or don't like candidates (go and tell them, then, otherwise you just look lazy) and b) it will give a clear and definite figure on the number of people who would like to vote, are happy to vote, but feel a disconnect with the political scene.

simu

It's not a perfect world. Sometimes you'll only have candidates you're less than happy with vying for your vote. Get over it and vote for the least bad.

Out of what woodwork would better candidates magically appear if there was such a system in place and the initial candidates were rejected, anyways?

philologos

That won't encourage other better candidates to run, and ultimately you could have a lack of candidates.

johnnyskeleton

JC 2K3 wrote:

Should there be a "none of the above" option on ballot papers and should it actually count?

In Ireland, where politics is more about good entertainment than who actually runs the country, I think this would be a dangerous and expensive policy. I can see "none of the above" topping the poles every time.

On the other hand, I think the Quick Pick option is the way to go...

Crash

We could always combine the lotto and the TD elections together actually....

SkepticOne

JC 2K3 wrote:

You didn't read my first post properly.

If 90% of people voted "none of the above", there'd have to be another election with different candidates for the amount of seats that "none of the above" "won".

Can't see the point of that tbh. If the goal is to get good candidates to come forward by eliminating the bad ones then why did they not come forward in the first place?