This is the function of NOTA. It allows people to withhold their consent for an election can declare a winner, and if over 50% choose this option in an electorate, e.g. MP constituency, that electorate can be said to have withheld their consent, so the election cannot declare a winner and must be re-run.
In the meantime, the seat remains empty and automatically registers as a ‘No’ vote for any proposed legislation as that is a true reflection of their will. — romanv
Is it the same as leaving the circle beside all the candidates as empty or is NOTA something that forces the parties to change their platforms?
I can picture offices remaining empty for years on end, while meanwhile all sorts of economic, infrastructural, etc. disasters pile up.
I don't think your scenario is realistic, — romanv
I think that the mere possibility of it suggests that the approach wouldn't be a good idea.
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? — romanv
Is there any other scenario where adults should not be allowed to say 'no' from time to time? — romanv
Voters will ensure that their best interests are served, — romanv
then you think that democracy doesn't work. — romanv
You are looking to be ruled, — romanv
Real democracy will maximise the common good, and nothing else can do so. — romanv
I think it's better to not just put everything indefinitely in limbo just because we don't love any of the choices.
I think it's better to not just put everything indefinitely in limbo just because we don't love any of the choices.
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,
I don't think there are any inherent merits to any particualr governmental structure.
I care about what the laws are, etc.
I think it's unavoidable to be ruled.
That's not a bumper sticker that I agree with.
They will make choices that will be of benefit to them, and discard choices that make them worse off. Therefore, over time, they themselves will be able to steer society to a point where the common good has been maximized, if – and only if- they have the power. — romanv
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.
I am in favor of experimenting with a "NOTA option.
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. — romanv
if we lived in an ideal world where people tried things out in good faith, I would have no objection to this route. — romanv
Perhaps the environment is better in the USA, but you cant trust the UK government to look into this reform fairly. — romanv
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.
NOTA ensures your vote is not wasted. — romanv
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. — romanv
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? — romanv
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. — romanv
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.
I don't think so. People putting a cross in the NOTA box could have a variety of reasons for doing so
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.
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.
People are in charge of their own destiny and they get to choose what works and what doesn't. — romanv
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.