I think that my biggest issue is that it is a little simplistic to imagine that a NOTA vote is a vote against all legislation.

Maybe its easier to understand if you think of NOTA is the withholding of consent. What should happen instead? The consequences of choosing NOTA are defined, and if that is what voters choose, then that is what they should get. Treat voters as adults, not as children who must be forced to have a guardian, whether they like it or not.

While it certainly is true that NOTA voters may not necessarily reject all legislation, but NOTA must function within the confines of an electoral system. The opposite is also true. People who vote for candidates do not support all the legislation that is proposed. While you may not see that as problematic (and why you find the opposite equivalent situation a problem?), the people who do can choose NOTA until their parameters are met. This choice can only find its expression in a limited blunt form, just as those who vote for a candidate can express themselves in a limited blunt form. It's up to the voter to decide whether on balance NOTA is the choice for them or not.

NOTA is designed to be a reliable indicator of public dissatisfaction. If more than 50% choose NOTA, then isn't this worth knowing? How can you fix anything without acknowledging there is a problem. I don't agree with your analysis, NOTA is not disenfranchisement, its the opposite, it ensures that governance only occurs with the consent of the majority. Parties only indulge in the behaviour you describe, as they will still be elected no matter how badly they perform. Once they can be denied being elected, will these tactics stop. If I may be blunt - your position is one of total nonsense. The behaviour you describe is exactly the type of behaviour the presence of NOTA will stop. Either representatives work to maximise common good, or large swathes of them will have to find new employment, come to the next election.

It's the current system, without NOTA, that encourages this behaviour.

With all due respect to minor parties, elections were not created for them, they were created so voters can have adequate representation. If anything, the views of minor parties will have more influence, as their supporters can withhold their consent, until some positions advocated by minor parties are taken up by major ones.

I cannot for the life of me think why giving voters the ability to say No, is seen as negative. If you were the boss of a company, to form a loose analogy, is it 'negative' to say No from time to time? What is negative is being forced to choose between various forms of inadequate representation, and not be allowed to reject all of them.

What is your positive alternative?

It didn't? I thought it did. Perhaps I misunderstand how multi-member constituencies are elected. As I understand it, to get elected, a candidate must achieve a given threshold of votes that depends on the possible number of seats for that constituency.

So with NOTA on the ballot, if it achieves the given threshold, that seat 'belongs' to NOTA.

Our white paper does not go into MMS, but we always follow the foundational principle of democracy. ie sovereign power is vested in the people. So what they want is what they get. No more, and no less.

Which is why I posted in a philosophy forum. I wanted to see if our conceptual framework is sound.

While what you say is true. What is also true is that, in spite of what you say, they have chosen NOTA, and that is a rejection of all the candidates on the ballot. So naturally that means:

a. The seat must remain empty until the next election, as those voters don't want any of the representation on offer.

b. Those empty seats automatically count as a vote against any proposed legislation. Why? These voters have rejected all the policies proposed by choosing NOTA, so an empty NOTA seat should count as being against all proposed legislation.

This is consistent with governance being with the consent of the governed, a key principle that must be obeyed if a democracy is to exist. If over 50% of the seats are unoccupied due to NOTA then no legislation can be passed, and that is how it should be, as the consent of the majority is not possible in this scenario. This is not possible unless the consequence of an empty NOTA seat is a vote against all proposed legislation.

It is meant to be problematic. This is what will incentivise the legislature to ensure that the number of empty NOTA seats is kept minimised, and that can only be done if the legislature is focused on maximising the common good, this means they are aligned with their electorate, as that is what their electorate wants them to do. Represent their best interests at all times.

We should bear in mind that voters live with the consequences of their choices, so they are incentivised to make the best choices in candidates and policies, in the long run anyway, and to interfere with that process will lead to sub-optimal results.

We must allow the true voice of the people to manifest itself, and only then will we get the best results for as many as possible.

As a side note, we should remember that if power is vested in the people, then that means the people must be free, unfree people cannot have power, that means we have certain rights that guarantee our freedom. Democracy rests upon and is sustained by our rights, and no real democracy can take away the rights of anyone living within. I mention this as some people fear the power of the mob, democracy is not the mob.

The state does not protect our rights, our rights constrain the state.

What do you think? Does this make sense to you?

Glad you agree. And I bet you don't have smelly feet either. :)

Do you always hang about like a bad smell?

You too mate.

Jog on mate, jog on. We are done here.

Your writing reeks of being a utter cock, so...

You make a large number of assumptions in your post. You stick with the cock and balls, let the grown-ups work on the rest.

^ I am aware you can deface the ballot, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an option to abstain.
You get to be childish and they get to ignore you. Lose-lose for you and win-win for them.

Without an option to reject all, you get diddled, and your idea is to bend over and take it like a man.

You have been had my son.

Quite often NOTA is portrayed, unfairly, as something negative. If I try and defend it using that frame, then I am losing the argument, but if reframe it as a positive, and not using NOTA as negative then I win.

imo opinion anyway.

I think making an appeal to emotion is an important part of getting people involved in a topic. And I am pretty passionate about it all anyway.

Without a reliable measure of public dissatisfaction, you cannot have good governance, it's a fundamental requirement that has been completely ignored.

Compulsory voting, without an option to abstain and an option to reject all, encapsulates everything that is wrong with what is called democracy today. This is why politicians should never be in charge of anything, as they will cock it all up.

I think I will leave it there.

I;m open to hearing how it could be formulated differently for a multi-member electorate.

If NOTA gets the required quota of votes then that seat will remain empty until the next election. That empty seat will automatically register as a vote aginst all proposed legislation as

1) that is the democratically valid consequence of a NOTA seat
2) it aligns the assembly with the will of the voters, the more empty seats, the more difficult it is to pass legislation, just as it should be.The assembly's interests are then aligned with their voters, as they will always strive to minimise the number of NOTA seats, and the only way to do that is to always strive to serve voters first and foremost.

The responsibility of voters, no, their solemn patriotic duty is to only give their consent to representation that each considers adequate. To accept sub-representation is to let down not only themselves, but also their families, their communities, and their nation.

In our lives we will only get 10-12 opportunities to vote in elections that can shape the national destiny, we must make each one count. Accepting sub-par representation is shirking our responsibility, our responsibility is to ensure we have the best representation that is possible to obtain in our judgement. And we will see that judgement manifest itself, as we are the ones who live with the consequences of our decisions.

Banno, you have it back to front, the electoral system exists for us, not the other way round.

People didn't sacrifice themselves so we can have shitty little wankers strutting around as if we owe it to them to let them tell us what to do, they sacrificed themselves so we can have an opportunity to make the world a better place for everyone.

This is something relative to the UK, where the electoral system differs from ours. Here we use a proportional representation, namely the D'Hondt method. In the UK you have actually various systems, but the notable one is the "winner-takes-it-all" system, the single member plurality system. I assume this system gives you the "safe-seats". Correct me if I'm wrong.

There are pros and cons in every system I guess. For example, with the proportional representation system here the votes needed to win a seat depends on other members success. — ssu

Just the one system AFAIA. Perhaps there are local elections arranged differently, but the 'winner take all' is the predominant one. Yes, this is the one where we end up with safe seats, and this is how the political establishment becomes entrenched, isolated, and estranged from their voters, there are seats that have not changed parties for generations.

Umm...how?

So if people can vote your NOTA option and these NOTA's get over 50% which makes the election process be held again, just how does this have these kind of effects the way parties are organized? — ssu

Because now they need genuine majority consent to get elected, in the vast majority of seats, including safe seats, only a plurality vote for the winner. To put it in context, the 2 main political parties, in every election from 2001 (except the last one) got less than 50% of the vote once you take turnout (around 70%) into account, but between them, they control over 90% of the seats in parliament.

Once NOTA is in place there is a simple, and democratically valid way, to stop such a travesty. The majority who never vote for the MPs sitting in parliament (apparently 68% of votes have no effect on the result of an election in our system) can now coalesce in a single politically neutral option. So now the whip-hand is in the hand of the electors, not the party elites, so they have to change or they will not get elected.

Hence actual participation in political parties by ordinary people that aren't looking for a political career or job opportunities later from the party is the best way to keep the representative model working and the political parties on beat with the voters. — ssu

How can it be the best way if it doesn't work? Clearly, it doesn't, you said it yourself. Think of it this way. You are paying for everything already through taxes, now why do you need to do the work as well?

In the WP we talk about the 'lead, follow or get out the way' model that describes literally every electoral system without NOTA, it is not democratic, it is an authoritarian model that usually results in political elites that are out of control from voters.

The ethos behind representative democracy is that we elect representatives precisely bc we don't have the expertise or experience to run a country ourselves. To do what you advocate successfully you need more of a direct democracy, and I have nothing against that, but your way is not the best way, its the worst way. The only way to get representative democracy to work as it should is if voters have veto power to reject all at the ballot if they so wish.

Oligarchy means a bit different thing. Besides, if the voters are passive and go along with the candidates and parties that they have, it's basically up to them. The root cause of the problem likely is that people don't hold political parties accountable, far too easy to believe the lies over and over again and pick the least worst candidate there is. — ssu

Oligarchy means that power is in the hands of a few, and that is exactly what happens now. With NOTA, power is in the hands of voters, that is a democracy. You can't hold political parties responsible without NOTA, at the very least its very difficult

our NOTA option might also just justify and encourage apathy and disinterest in politics in general. The attitude of "I don't know, I don't actually care, I'll just vote NOTA" without any consideration of what that NOTA actually would be. — ssu

That's just silly. There is nothing stopping people doing the same random party now in any case, if they are that disinterested. How does giving people a way to make their voice heard, and ensure it can have a democratically valid effect encourage apathy and ignorance? You may as well say that the sunshine and rain stop plants from growing.

People who are disinterested will not vote. The point of NOTA is there to be an option at the ballot so people who do care can ensure that if they are not guaranteed adequate representation, they can reject all the options on the ballot. There is nothing negative about this, in fact accepting poor representation is negative. If you love your country and value democracy and freedom, hold out for representation that you think is worthy of yourself, your family, and your nation.

No-one is doing you a favour by standing for election, they are getting paid if they win, and they have their hands on your tax money. They have to serve you, you don't serve them. These are potential employees auditioning for you, there is nothing negative about rejecting them all if they are sub-par.

A link to a snippet from an interview my colleague had on the 'The Wright Stuff' show on talk radio on NOTA and the WP.

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1082312007234260994?s=19&fbclid=IwAR3EqiTJGEMGJGsfaNCK9O_-hsgIjm9jXzEgqEy_JHEHcGM868nMpszE9SA

You can see from many examples that voters can make quite a surprise to the parties with so-called "fringe" views becoming suddenly mainstream. — ssu

I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. I think they know very well the preferences of their voting base and the electorate at large, but simply choose to ignore them. The reason they can ignore them is that the NOTA option does not exist.

In the UK, have a huge number of 'safe-seats', well over 350, in a parliament of about 615, this is the cause of the so-called disconnection between parties establishment and their voters. A large number of these safe-seats are won on pluralities, NOTA can knock them out.

Our WP analysed the 34th most safe Conservative party seat out of the 314 they won, and the inclusion of NOTA could easily turn it from a 'safe-seat' to one NOTA can easily 'win'. This represents the death of party-driven politics imo, and will prevent the estrangement you refer to. (p18 if want to refer to the WP)

In the WP, we discuss the 'Iron Law of Oligarchy' this is a well established political theory, that is backed up by studies of large organisations that shows that all organisations are shaped by an oligarchy at the top, as they reward loyalty. The only way to prevent it is by a NOTA option on the ballot, as that reduces the power of the oligarchy at the top significantly.

If you use PR in Finland, we have a section in the WP how NOTA can be implemented in a PR system. ( p27 onward)

That political parties have become estranged from the people is a totally true problem — ssu

That is what NOTA is there to solve. I am not saying that they are not estranged, just because dominating elite are estranged, that doesn't mean grassroots activists doesn't know what is happening on the ground. And if they don't know shouldn't we ensure the system forces them to know and act on what the electorate wants?

You see a political party usually has some core ideology, those beliefs that make it be seen as belonging to the left or right. And that political ideology then unites the people that form the political party and then they go on to advance their political ideology and agenda.

If the population seems indifferent or not excited about the agenda, then a political party won't throw away it's core ideology, but simply it will start to sell it in the way that it would be more popular. Heck, it's marketing! You see, people simply don't start a party without any beliefs and then just change them to whatever the majority is feeling at the moment. — ssu

That is not the problem for voters, that is a problem for political parties to solve. Don't make their problems a problem for voters. So much of politics, without NOTA, is political parties using voters to solve their internal politicking. The BREXIT referendum a case in point.

(Not that I am arguing in favour or against BREXIT or its result, but pointing the reason why we had the referendum was Cameron having to deal with factions in his party, rather than a sincere desire to find out and then follow the wishes of the electorate)

Well, you asked for critique, but I'm not so sure how willing you are to hear it... — ssu

I am very willing to engage with everyone as long as they are also engaging in good faith.

As a side note, once you examine the conceptual framework of democracy, it becomes clear how central the incorporation of consent is in its real-world implementation. Once you understand that, then you see how far short the current implementations are from democratic ideals. What we call democracy is really an elected oligarchy, and the characteristics it has are a result of having an elected oligarchy, rather than a democracy.

The potential this simple reform has to re-shape politics is astonishing. I am surprised, on a philosophy forum, that no-one has engaged me more (at all?) on the concepts we use.

But in reality, that probably ain't gonna happen, because most voters vote for what they're for rather than what they're against, and the two major parties tend to avoid coalition politics where possible, with a few relatively recent examples being the idea of a coalition between Labour and the SNP, and the idea of a progressive alliance, both of which were ruled out by Labour and amounted to nothing of any real significance. — S

Well, it's a fair point, it is difficult to predict the uptake on the NOTA option in the UK. Its a new option, and it may take people time to understand the point of it. But, having said that, a parliamentary committee exploring electoral reform in the UK, conducted a study on the level of interest of all proposed electoral reforms and the inclusion of a NOTA option was one of the most popular, with 72% of 15,000 respondents in favour of it.

They wrote a report in 2015 stating that its inclusion should be studied, but the incoming government disbanded the committee and did not act on its findings.

A 'Reject All' option in Russia was available in municipal elections for a number of years, which won on a plurality and forced new candidates to stand, both of which are strongly argued against in the WP, won 20% of the elections. So it has been used extensively, when available, elsewhere.

I think it will be used, and once it is understood, be used extensively, if necessary. And if it is not used, it could be a sign of its success, as the point of NOTA is to force candidates and parties to represent as much of the electorate as possible. That must be taken into account as well.

I think the way to promote its use is to point out that by accepting inadequate representation you are letting down yourself, your family, your community, and your nation. IMO we should all only give our consent in an election when we think we each think have adequate representation.

In terms of your point about the rarity of coalitions, this is what occurs without NOTA in an FPTP system, NOTA will, again imo, significantly weaken party-driven politics and change it to voter-led politics, and coalitions and co-operation will become more common.

A lot of stuff there. But quite aggressive in your questioning. Let me assume you are hostile to the reform. It's always difficult in these situations as you have already closed your mind, much like Herge.

He started out saying it was only of marginal use, and when I demonstrated the reform goes to the heart of democracy, he could not come up with any kind of coherent rebuttal and refused to engage further.

Basically, put his hands over his ears and went lalalalala.

Are you worth engaging with? There is no point if you are simply going to shift the goal posts and not argue in good faith.

Most of your points are answered in the white paper.

Let me take this one, which is not answered in the white paper.

How on Earth could the "local party activists" know?

What you are stating here is that political parties are disconnected from their voters. Their job is to represent voters, if they can't know why people chose NOTA over them, then that means they are not doing their job. Its a pretty incredible claim you are making there.

Let's assume its true. How do parties find out? Well, they engage with the voting base, knocking on doors, gauging opinions, gathering feedback, conducting surveys, and utilising focus groups; there are plenty of tried and tested methods of finding out why people chose NOTA. And it's their job to do so. It's literally crazy if they don't know.

The function of NOTA is to ensure candidates and parties remain fully engaged with their voting base and put them first.

"People putting a cross in the NOTA box could have a variety of reasons for doing so".

Of course, that is entirely the point of having NOTA, in the UK FPTP system opposition to the status quo is divided, thus allowing candidates and parties that only represent a plurality of the electorate to rule everyone, this is not a democracy. NOTA allows opposition to unite in one politically neutral voting bloc, without compromising on their views and ideals, thus only candidates with genuine majority consent are elected.

If the electoral system cannot elect a candidate with genuine majority consent, then that clearly means the electoral system needs reform to one where the use of NOTA is minimised. You don't do away with NOTA because too many people will use it, much like you don't stop seeing a doctor when he tells you have cancer.

Gauging the level of public satisfaction is essential for effective governance. Its fundamental, and there is no rational or non-corrupt reason not to have it measured.

Happy to talk further, but only if you are willing to engage honestly, not like Herge.

The white supporting the proposal of adding NOTA to the ballot has now been published.

https://nota-uk.org/2019/01/07/nota-uk-publishes-definitive-none-of-the-above-white-paper/

You raise some very interesting points. I hope you don't mind that I drag the discussion back to my particular bugbear: having a 'real democracy'.

For me, everything starts and ends there. Others may not see it that way, but its the way I envision the world. The root of all evil is being ruled, as rulers don't have to endure the consequences of their decisions. The solution is self governance, as we all have to live with the consequences of our choices.

My assertion, and it is no more than an assertion, but much of what have said echoes my own thoughts, is that education that is imparted by public schools today, do not prepare citizens for democracy. The reason for that is we don't have one, they prepare students for being ruled by an elite that 'knows better'.

Weak and powerless drones who don't question authority and don't learn to think for themselves. To turn, what I hope is a pithy phrase, political correctness, which is what is elevated in schools now, makes the trivial, important, and the important, racist.

The way to steer education back on track is by ensuring that citizens have self governance to the fullest extent possible, once that happens educational standards will change, as they have to, to ensure citizens are prepared to have real power in their hands. That requires moving away from political correctness, as its main function is to shut down discussion on anything the elite ruling class don't want questioned, or serve as a distraction from real issues, to concentrate on imparting the skills to think for yourself and helping young people find their path in life.

Their aim is to gain power and keep it. What else does a political party aim to do?

However, in their quest for power, they should be offering policies that benefit the public with candidates that are most effective in implementing these policies. Yet often they fail to reach that standard.

And its not just me who thinks so. Why are politicians the most despised profession, outside journalism?

In a real democracy, almost by definition, politicians would be the most respected members of society, as they would be engaged in the maximisation of the public good.

I think we would be arguing semantics. The free market is supposed to ensure the most efficient use of resources, and that happens by allocating resources to where profit is maximised.

If you would do me the honour of reading the first post of the linked thread, I think it would be easier to understand what I meant.

Political parties' interests are not aligned with voters, unless you have a formal and binding NOTA option whose choice has democratically valid consequences.

I can guarantee you that political parties do not work for the common good any more than strictly necessary, they work to consolidate their own power.

It is no more faulty than democracy itself. I could just as easily say “if properly implemented.” Making a profit isn’t all that bad, no more than persuading people to vote this way or that. The democratic principle in this sense is about the “better” idea winning through.

I don't mean to imply that making money is bad, but it is a free market's sole function, everything else that it provides is a by-product of that function.

What I mean by democracy 'properly implemented' is that our so-called democratic system is anything but, which is why it is failing to maximise the common good.

The opening post in the thread linked below outlines how a formal and binding NOTA option is the reform that is required to fix the flawed 'lead, follow, or get out of the way' electoral model that is so prevalent around the world.

It is this poor electoral model that prevents 'real democracy', and so the maximisation of the common good.

A well implemented and binding NOTA option would indeed allow democracy to fulfil its natural function of the maximisation of the common good.

You can read about it here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4501/you-cannot-have-an-electoral-democracy-without-an-effective-none-of-the-above-nota-option/p1

imo the free market and democracy are based on the same principles. People themselves decide what succeeds and what fails.

The difference between the 2 is that the free market seeks to maximise profit, democracy, if properly implemented will seek to to maximise the common good.

I think we are somewhat on the same page. I don't disagree with most of what you say. I guess the answer to the question is that the parents must instill values in their children. I think overall people do try and do so. I have a little one, and we spend a lot of time trying to make sure he understands what is right and what is wrong.

However, as he gets older, he will see that being a good person, doesn't necessarily get rewarded, and the rewards are there for those who cheat, then he will have to navigate those waters on his own. The world is a tough place.

I have to agree with most of your statements, but I am not sure if direct democracy is a good solution.

Its heartening to hear that my arguments are cogent enough for you to agree. I was not really suggesting direct democracy as a solution, but pointing out that if you want citizen participation in running a country, then referendums are the medium where that can occur.

As you point out, they have their drawbacks and are subject to manipulation.

However it is interesting to note that the 2 countries in the world that practice direct democracy on a regular basis, Switzerland and Chile, are comparatively very successful. Chile is obviously not yet a developed nation, but in comparison to its neighbours, it is less corrupt and is better run that most, if not all countries, in central and south america.

However my knowledge of both countries is superficial and perhaps I am not fully aware of the whole situation.

If anyone can run - no barriers imposed -, than someone must please your taste, even if it has to be yourself.

I disagree vehemently! :)

What you are doing is re-stating 'lead, follow or get out of the way'. This is THE enormous flaw we aim to fix!

If you want voters to be more directly involved in governing, then there should be more referendums.

Why should they be forced out of the way? An electoral democracy has been created for the voters, voters don't serve the electoral democracy. The reason why we have an electoral democracy is because we, as voters, don't have the expertise to govern ourselves, so we delegate governing to others.

Our job is to tell those who wish to govern whether the options on the ballot will guarantee the majority adequate representation. We are not doing our job, if we accept bad representation.

Saying 'No' when you believe an election cannot represent you adequately is a dereliction of your duty as voter, how else can those who wish to govern know whether they are doing a good job or not? This our job as the boss, to give or withhold consent. This is our sole duty as a voter.

To not allow a voter to do so, and then tell him he should run himself is preposterous, its gas-lighting on a massive scale, and for some reason we buy into this nonsense.

Is there any other situation where we will not allow an adult to say 'No'? Should a boss not be able to decide what he wants freely? Its your country, why voluntarily restrict your voting power? This makes everything worse, not better.

I couldn't possibly run a country, so what now, I get out of the way, and pay for people who don't have the consent of the majority to rule me?

If you google the 'iron law of oligarchy' you can see why ruling elites inevitably become self serving cliques that are out of the control of their voters. (This is also in our white paper)

Do you want to be ruled or represented? If the latter, then you have to be able to say 'No' from time to time.

Its a matter of logic that if we allowed voters to say 'No' then they will, over time, choose candidates and policies that maximise the common good, and discard those that have a bad effect as it is them (by that I mean all of us) who live with the consequences of the decisions made by those who are elected.

Not allowing us to say 'No' can send a country into a never ending series of disasters, or allow a situation where voters turn to an extremist candidate or party.

Perhaps on a theoretical level anyone can run, but its easy enough for the unscrupulous to make politics a gutter that puts off, or destroys, good people who could have done a better job.

In a real democracy, almost by definition, those who are elected would be the most respected members of society, not the least respected. There is a good reason why politicians are generally despised, and that reason is because we don't have a binding NOTA on the ballot.

If we could run the country ourselves then we wouldn't need an electoral system in the first place.

In Brasil, my country

Our white paper includes Brazil as a case study. As I understand it you have a non-binding NOTA option, and in a recent election this option was widely used, even though it had no effect.

It would be very interesting for me to send you what we have written and get your feedback, on whether we have reported accurately on it or not. And you could tell me more about NOTA and politics in your country.

Freedom of expression is a terrible idea because it is far too inclusive. In your list of what we must have to have freedom, you did not include education for good moral judgment, and liberty is not possible without that.

Its my opinion that no-one possesses the skill or knowledge to restrict what can or cannot be said spoken of, or expressed. Its a power that no-one should have another.

I think there are clear limits, when you think of freedom of expression as one of a number of rights that each individual should have to ensure their freedom.

Hopefully then it is self evident that calling for physical harm or threatening the safety of other people is not covered under freedom of expression, nor is lying.

I agree with your sentiment on education, but again, who decides on that what is good moral judgement and what isn't?

I am not surprised!

Yes of course I am trying to make converts. I told you that at the start.

I am presenting the the option as well as I can. Why not? However, I addressed each of your points sincerely and as best as I could.

We can either be ruled or be represented.

All I can do is demonstrate the logical consequences of changing from being ruled to represented. I don't know about utopia, but the end result is having a world as good as its ever going to be.

People are in charge of their own destiny and they get to choose what works and what doesn't. Is that utopia, or what should be just normal?

Perhpaps we now regard dysfunction as normal and normal as 'utopia'.

And remember, all I am describing is real democracy. Is real democracy utopia? Should we not at least try to find out? Can this option do any harm? Its potential is to maximise the common good, is it not worth at least trying it?

Adding another tick box on the ballot and democratically valid consequences for that choice is all it takes. Not exactly going to cost anything is it?

Why not toss the he 2 weevils out?

Only if all the non-Tory candidates stand down, leaving just the Tory and NOTA on the ballot paper. Otherwise what you will most likely get is a split vote across the other candidates and NOTA, and thus no guarantee that the NOTA vote will be effective.

No. This is the entire point of having NOTA. If you are in a Tory safe seat and don't approve of the Tory candidate, no matter your views, you can choose NOTA. It puts all the opposition into one basket. It undermines the entire reason why both the conservative and labour will not change to a PR system.

Currently all the small parties do is divide the opposition and shoehorn in either Labour or Tory (usually) with a plurality. And of those who vote for either, many are not happy voters.

Obviously not all voters will fully understand the use of NOTA, but once you start getting even 20% in the NOTA bloc, parties and candidates will begin to compete for these votes, and improve what is admittedly a bad system.

I don't think so. People putting a cross in the NOTA box could have a variety of reasons for doing so

Yes, you understand the vast the scope of the NOTA option immediately. I disagree that they don't know why NOTA was chosen. Local party activists will know exactly why NOTA was chosen, and in fact its very presence will ensure parties begin to start taking mitigating measures to prevent voters choosing NOTA.

Also, I very much doubt the FPTP system can reduce the number of NOTA voters to an acceptable level, so moving to PR will becomes inevitable. Currently, neither Labour or Conservative have any incentive to allow this change to occur, as it will destroy their duopoly on power.

No system can ever guarantee an outcome acceptable to all voters. The most it can do is allow every voter to have an equal influence on the representative institutions, i.e. parliament.

Its not meant to. It is inevitable that in a FPTP system that not all voters will get what they want, but NOTA can be used to ensure only a candidate with the consent of the majority can enter parliament, which is a vast improvement on what we have now.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. If we had PR, my vote would not be wasted. With NOTA, my vote will still be wasted unless enough non-Tories in my constituency cooperate in voting NOTA to outvote the Tories, which seems to me very unlikely.

No co-operation is required as such, you all vote in your self-interest. However all are united in one bloc that is politically neutral, no-one need endorse any other candidate. No co-operation required, just people voting what they think is in their own interest, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I have no disagreement with PR.

But PR needs NOTA. Even in a PR system you are a captive to party politics, you have to accept the entire party platform and candidates, whether you like it or not. It is very unlikely that a single party can form a government on its own, so the compromises reached to form a government may not have the consent of the majority. Nor is their any incentive in parliament to maximise the common good, they can easily fall into dysfunction (as we are now) and there is nothing that can be done.

Now add the NOTA option and all that changes. Take a example of a simplified hypothetical PR system, where the percentage of votes determines the allocation of seats.

Say it is a 100 seat legislature. So 20% of the vote, gets 20 seats. If 20% vote NOTA, those seats remain empty and automatically vote against all proposed legislation (this is the democratically valid consequence of choosing NOTA).

Then the legislature must constantly work to maximise the common good in an effort to keep the number of empty seats to a minimum.

NOTA aligns the interests of the legislature with their voters. This is democracy.

To prevent the tyranny of the majority, most countries adopt a constitution (written or not) that limits and distributes power. By doing so, the constitution impose restrictions on the rule of the majority.

There are inherent limits to the amount of power a democracy confers.

Democracy is based on popular sovereignty ie all power is vested in the people.

If power is vested in the people, then they must be free, as only a free people can have power.

If they have power, then they must have inalienable rights that ensure that they remain free.

A non-exhaustive list is:

Freedom of expression
Presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial
Freedom of association
Right to live without discrimination

he moment that this rights stop being a guideline (a suggestion/a cultural imposition) and start being an legal imposition on the majority, we stop having a democratic system.

These restrictions are what make it democratic. Rule by the majority without restriction is mob rule.

For me, most are oligarchies with democratic elements.

You are 100% correct. I would be honoured if you read the first post in the following thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4501/you-cannot-have-an-electoral-democracy-without-an-effective-none-of-the-above-nota-option

There is no moral justification for having someone in office who does not have the consent of majority in a democracy.

If you think democracy is meaningless, as you seem to suggest, then you be you.

This is why I am in 2 minds about the experiment route. I would rather have this option just be put on the ballot without giving anyone a chance to find a way to stop it in the experimental stage.

I think there is a compelling legal case for its inclusion, but right now I want to spread awareness on just how much we are missing out without this option.

People think it is of marginal use, nothing can be further from the truth, it is fundamental to a democratic electoral system.

I have been a non-Tory living in an ultra-safe Tory constituency.

You can put NOTA on the ballot paper if you like. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. It's a complete irrelevance as far as I'm concerned.

Aha. I was waiting for this take. This is a common misconception. Please bear with me, I don't know in which constituency you live, but the inclusion of NOTA will can have a substantial impact in narrowing the number so-called 'safe-seats' in general.

In our white paper. we used an example of the 41st most safe conservative seat. (it was initially picked as we thought it was the 100th most safe seat, but turned out to be the 41st most safe seat for the conservatives). There are about 368 safe seats out of 650 between the various parties; this is why we have such bad representation, and party politics dominates our lives imo.

In that seat, the conservatives won with 45% of the vote, if you include those who did not vote they had 32% of the vote.

They won bc the opposition was divided or had to get out of the way.

With NOTA, all the opposition can go into one politically neutral option: the NOTA option.

In that seat, there is no point in you voting Labour (unless you don't mind the Conservative winning). You, and all those who voted for other parties, can (and arguably should) choose the NOTA option.

Turnout in that constituency was 71%. How many of the remaining 29% did not vote bc there was no chance of their preferred candidate winning (like you), or none of the candidates/parties represented them adequately? We have no way of knowing. (Surveys indicate there are substantial numbers of such people.)

How many of the Conservative voters voted for the Conservative candidate as they though he was the least crappy candidate, even thought they had severe reservations? We have no way of knowing.( in the last election, 20% voted tactically, and substantial numbers vote 'holding their nose'.)

NOTA ensures your vote is not wasted. As you are in a very powerful, but politically neutral bloc of NOTA voters, encompassing people of all political stripes, but who are united in their dissatisfaction with the potential outcome of the election.

A voter should be guaranteed an acceptable outcome, otherwise they should choose NOTA. How can anyone give their consent to an election declaring a winner when there is a chance that they wont get adequate representation?

The voting system is there to serve us, we are not there to serve the voting system.

Now you can start to see at least some of your views being reflected in the winning candidate, as they will have to adjust their platform and/or candidate to get your consent.

Supposing the level of NOTA remains very high, then it makes a compelling case for voter led electoral reform, the most likely result is a PR system.

A PR system needs a NOTA option also. I wont go into it now, but can you see how much impact NOTA can have?

I hope this provides you with some additional insight into the possibilities that are opened up with a NOTA option. You are the kind of person we are hoping to convince to support NOTA. If I have made you re-consider your position I would be very happy.

I am in favor of experimenting with a "NOTA option.

I am in 2 minds about this. I understand where you are coming from, if we lived in an ideal world where people tried things out in good faith, I would have no objection to this route.

However, it could be that a trial introduction, just remains a trial, and a pretext to bin the reform will be found. Then it would be, well we tried, but ...(insert excuse here) we are not going to expand its use.

A few years ago we advocated for NOTA to a parliamentary committee convened to look into electoral reform. They recommended that the electoral commission start looking into the NOTA option. Not long after, there was a general election and literally within a week or 2, the incoming government disbanded the committee, and the main opposition raised no objection.

They just do not want to change the status quo. Perhaps the environment is better in the USA, but you cant trust the UK government to look into this reform fairly.

When considering your appeal to a change of procedure, it may be helpful to consider why some say "none of the above" won't be showing up on the menu of available alternatives.

Can you be more specific? Advancing this reform is an uphill battle, as even though I think the arguments are unassailable, those who already hold power would be loathe to change the status quo.

I have read your post several times, but am not getting your point.

You think we need to present our arguments in a different way?

I think it's better to not just put everything indefinitely in limbo just because we don't love any of the choices.

So you think that even if more than 50% choose NOTA we should still have the election declare a winner. Well, ok then. No-one is forcing you to choose NOTA, if you think its better choosing a crappy candidate who wont represent you well, over waiting a few months for one who would represent the majority, that totally up to you, pick one. Its an absurd position, but you be you.

If NOTA reform is implemented, then elections fulfill the tenets of democracy and this opens up the path to maximisation of the common good, but this is not a goal worth pursuing in your eyes.

Your objection for everyone else doing so is that you envision an absurd possibility that voters will misuse the new power to withhold their consent, so society becomes even worse off than previously, even though they live with the consequences of their decisions.

What I've typically done is try to balance my vote between the person who I think is the least crappy of all of the crappy candidates,

This is what millions do, and it is absurd that our current system only allows a voter to choose the least crappy candidate, or vote for someone who has no chance of winning, or some loon in an impotent protest, or spoil your ballot (which is lumped in with those spoilt in error, and only counts an abstention anyway), none of which will ever help the voter get the representation they need.

Again if that fine with you, you go ahead and never use NOTA.

The reform is intended to remedy this flaw, but, quite bizarrely, your position is that you don't want the flaw remedied. As having a seat empty for a few months not a price worth paying, but having a crappy candidate who will work against the interests of the majority is just fine and dandy.

I don't think there are any inherent merits to any particualr governmental structure.

This is another absurd position to hold. Maybe you are just trolling.

I care about what the laws are, etc.

The UK government is legally obliged to be a democracy.

I think it's unavoidable to be ruled.

The point of democracy is that we are not ruled, but represented. The inclusion of the NOTA option makes that ideal a reality.

That's not a bumper sticker that I agree with.

You don't have to agree to anything, this is because you should not be ruled.

However, once people have the power of self determination, they are not going to make choices that are detrimental to themselves are they?

If you harness that natural desire within a democratic framework, it inevitably leads to the maximisation of the common good, whether you agree or not.

I think it's better to not just put everything indefinitely in limbo just because we don't love any of the choices.

You think its better the seat be filled with someone who the majority dont want in power, as opposed to having someone who does have the consent of the majority. Well, ok then. Nobody is forcing you to choose NOTA, so dont choose it.

However others may want the best for their life, and harnessing that desire wthin a democratic framework will lead to the maximization of the common good. But bc you envision a possibility that is absurd, you are against it for everyone.

Its not unavoidable to be ruled, NOTA changes the relationship between the elected and the elector from ruler to representative.

Whether we have a democracy may be irrelevaht to you, but it is considered the best form if governance by over 90% of people in a global survey. It is also a form of governance that the UK claims to observe, and it is a legal requirement for the UK for it to do so.

Thanks for your input.

I think that the mere possibility of it suggests that the approach wouldn't be a good idea.

The doctor might tell you that you are ill, so don't go to the doctor?

Its a very odd way of looking at things. You think that the level of public dissatisfaction is so high that no-one will get elected, so you think the best thing to do is brush it under the carpet, and prevent it from being expressed?

Is there any other scenario where adults should not be allowed to say 'no' from time to time?

Would you continue to vote NOTA while the country went to ruin? NOTA exists to ensure the best representation for voters. You have somehow twisted that into visions of dereliction and ruin.

The basic assumption of democracy functions on this 'thought': Voters will ensure that their best interests are served, as they live the consequences of the decisions made by their representatives.

If you think that assumption is flawed, then you think that democracy doesn't work.

You are looking to be ruled, and think that there is someone out there that will look out for you while you sit back. Real democracy will maximise the common good, and nothing else can do so.

What you suggest is so impossible it can be discounted in totality.