Ah, the idea that the "sleeping party", those who don't vote, especially if it the biggest "party" makes a "clear" statement of dissatisfaction, hence if only those sleepers would vote!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.
NOTA provides that power.
How?
The NOTA option becomes a powerful voting bloc encompassing voters from all political stripes. It serves to unite all those who are dissatisfied, and ensures only a candidate with the consent of the majority can enter parliament. — romanv
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. — romanv
How on Earth could the "local party activists" know?
"People putting a cross in the NOTA box could have a variety of reasons for doing so".
In that scenario, I can picture offices remaining empty for years on end, while meanwhile all sorts of economic, infrastructural, etc. disasters pile up. — Terrapin Station
I live in the UK. For the past 34 years, I have been a non-Tory living in an ultra-safe Tory constituency. Teresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will fly over my house on the backs of pigs, holding hands and singing 'Rule Britannia', before the Tories lose this seat. If I vote for anyone other than the Tory, my vote is simply wasted. In fact it is wasted even if I vote for the Tory, because the outcome is a foregone conclusion every single time.
So I do not vote.
We had a chance to get a half-way decent voting system in the 2011 referendum. I did vote in that one, but of course the British electorate, with its usual stunning grasp of the issue at stake, threw away its once-in-lifetime chance to get rid of this antiquated, unjust and immoral system.
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. — Herg
With NOTA, all the opposition can go into one politically neutral option: the NOTA option. — romanv
Please critique. — romanv
Well, you asked for critique, but I'm not so sure how willing you are to hear it...Happy to talk further, but only if you are willing to engage honestly, not like Herge. — romanv
Is it incredible, really?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. — romanv
Actually it isn't.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. — romanv
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
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
That political parties have become estranged from the people is a totally true problem — ssu
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
Well, you asked for critique, but I'm not so sure how willing you are to hear it... — ssu
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.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. — romanv
Umm...how?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. — romanv
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.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. — romanv
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
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
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
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
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
I;m open to hearing how it could be formulated differently for a multi-member electorate.
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. — 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.