You cannot have an electoral democracy without an effective 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option.
Please critique.
Background: I advocate for a 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option to be on the ballot based on it being a prerequisite for democratic elections.
Definition of real representative democracy: The adherence to popular sovereignty, by which we mean, the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives.
This is ‘real democracy’.
If that is the case then a democratic electoral model must allow people to withhold their consent, as otherwise obviously is not possible to give consent.
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.
This is the conceptual framework that forms the basis of the proposal..
Current electoral models can be summed up as ‘lead, follow, or get out of the way’. It is anti-democratic, and tends to authoritarianism, with an out of touch political elite who have far too much room to pursue their own petty agendas, or sell the voting public out to wealthy donors.
This fault can only be remedied by a NOTA option.
What is the benefit of a ‘real democracy’?
If the NOTA option is implemented following the tenets of real democracy, it will lead to the maximization of the common good (policies, decisions, and actions by the state that are beneficial to most or all members of that nation).
How would one know if the common good has been maximized?
Voters have to live with the consequences of their decisions, therefore only they can be the final arbiters of the common good.
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.
This characteristic opens the path to the maximisation of the common good as candidates must constantly compete with each for voters from within the NOTA bloc, and keep serving their current voters; this pressure inevitably results in the maximisation of the common good in the long run.
NOTA is not just for people who don’t have anyone to vote for, its use extends much further.
It is also for voters who are voting for the least of several evils, voters who political party has no chance of winning, or is uncertain to win, people who have a preferred candidate or political party, but some aspect of either the candidate, or policy platform is unacceptable to them.
In fact, unless an election can guarantee a winner acceptable to the voter, then that voter can, and arguably should, choose NOTA until their conditions are met, as only then can the state be a reflection of their will, as it should in a real democracy.
Currently we have an elected oligarchy who bend the state to their will; we elect rulers, not representatives.
NOTA puts a stop to all that.
The inclusion of NOTA also prevents the use of negative campaigning as a tactic, as all negative campaigning will do is increase the share of the NOTA vote, so there no longer any tactical advantage in it.
It also removes money from politics, and the so also the candidates who enter politics for financial gain, as once voters have veto power, money cannot buy results, and so will leave politics of its own accord and the voter will become truly sovereign.
The true power of NOTA is that it opens the political sphere to people who have talent and integrity who want to truly represent the voting public, but at the moment are not able to deal with the vicious and theatrical nature of the political environment. It takes the politics out of politics, and ensures it will only be focused on real issues that are of concern to the voting public.
Thanks for reading, please let me know what you think, especially is there anything unclear, or if you see a flaw in the reasoning, or anything at all really.
I have a co-authored a white paper on the topic and this is an extremely condensed version of it, much has been left out, but hopefully the salient points remain.
Background: I advocate for a 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option to be on the ballot based on it being a prerequisite for democratic elections.
Definition of real representative democracy: The adherence to popular sovereignty, by which we mean, the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives.
This is ‘real democracy’.
If that is the case then a democratic electoral model must allow people to withhold their consent, as otherwise obviously is not possible to give consent.
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.
This is the conceptual framework that forms the basis of the proposal..
Current electoral models can be summed up as ‘lead, follow, or get out of the way’. It is anti-democratic, and tends to authoritarianism, with an out of touch political elite who have far too much room to pursue their own petty agendas, or sell the voting public out to wealthy donors.
This fault can only be remedied by a NOTA option.
What is the benefit of a ‘real democracy’?
If the NOTA option is implemented following the tenets of real democracy, it will lead to the maximization of the common good (policies, decisions, and actions by the state that are beneficial to most or all members of that nation).
How would one know if the common good has been maximized?
Voters have to live with the consequences of their decisions, therefore only they can be the final arbiters of the common good.
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.
This characteristic opens the path to the maximisation of the common good as candidates must constantly compete with each for voters from within the NOTA bloc, and keep serving their current voters; this pressure inevitably results in the maximisation of the common good in the long run.
NOTA is not just for people who don’t have anyone to vote for, its use extends much further.
It is also for voters who are voting for the least of several evils, voters who political party has no chance of winning, or is uncertain to win, people who have a preferred candidate or political party, but some aspect of either the candidate, or policy platform is unacceptable to them.
In fact, unless an election can guarantee a winner acceptable to the voter, then that voter can, and arguably should, choose NOTA until their conditions are met, as only then can the state be a reflection of their will, as it should in a real democracy.
Currently we have an elected oligarchy who bend the state to their will; we elect rulers, not representatives.
NOTA puts a stop to all that.
The inclusion of NOTA also prevents the use of negative campaigning as a tactic, as all negative campaigning will do is increase the share of the NOTA vote, so there no longer any tactical advantage in it.
It also removes money from politics, and the so also the candidates who enter politics for financial gain, as once voters have veto power, money cannot buy results, and so will leave politics of its own accord and the voter will become truly sovereign.
The true power of NOTA is that it opens the political sphere to people who have talent and integrity who want to truly represent the voting public, but at the moment are not able to deal with the vicious and theatrical nature of the political environment. It takes the politics out of politics, and ensures it will only be focused on real issues that are of concern to the voting public.
Thanks for reading, please let me know what you think, especially is there anything unclear, or if you see a flaw in the reasoning, or anything at all really.
I have a co-authored a white paper on the topic and this is an extremely condensed version of it, much has been left out, but hopefully the salient points remain.
Comments (69)
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?
In that scenario, I can picture offices remaining empty for years on end, while meanwhile all sorts of economic, infrastructural, etc. disasters pile up.
It would be an additional option on the ballot. It should be used, not just when you don't have anyone for whom you wish to vote, but if the election does not guarantee you with an adequate representative.
The election is held solely for the voter and to expect them to give their consent when they are not guaranteed adequate representation is a ludicrous situation if you think about it.
If more than 50% choose that option, the election would be re-run, and parties would have to dig into the reasons why people held their consent, and change either the candidate, or policy platforms to prevent that from happening in the re-run.
Even if the number of voters choosing NOTA did not meet that 50+% threshold, it will still provide feedback on the level of public dissatisfaction that is clear and unambiguous, which is invaluable information to those who wish to serve the public.
In future elections candidates would compete with one another to minimise the number of voters going into the NOTA bloc, so there will be a continuous pressure for good governance.
I realise I went well beyond the scope of your question, but I think the answer provides valuable background on the topic. I hope so anyway.
That is not the fault of NOTA. That scenario is demonstrating that no candidate is capable in receiving the consent of the majority. Its like the doctor telling you that you have cancer and you decide the best course of action is to stop seeing the doctor.
In this case perhaps the electoral system needs to change to a PR system. NOTA is still required in that system.
In a simplified hypothetical PR system as an example, the percentage of people choosing NOTA will result in that percentage of seats remaining empty in the legislature, all automatically counted as a vote against any new legislation.
Obviously parties would be allocated seats according to the percentage of their votes. However, the legislature is incentivised to minimise the number of empty seats, and in this case they will be forced to work together to maximise the common good.
Without NOTA you cant have real democracy. Real democracy will inevitably lead to the maixmisation of the common good.
I don't think your scenario is realistic, as voters live with the consequences of their actions, so they would inevitably vote in their best interests anyway.
Maybe it isn't, but I don't think we can know whether it is simply by sitting in a chair and thinking about it.
I think that the mere possibility of it suggests that the approach wouldn't be a good idea.
(Of course, I have no inherent love for democracy. Personally, I couldn't care less what the structure of the government is a la whether it's a democracy, an oligarchy, a monarchy, etc. All I care about are what laws the government does and doesn't institute, how the government does or doesn't benefit the citizenry, and so on)
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.
I think it's better to not just put everything indefinitely in limbo just because we don't love any of the choices.
I've never loved anyone running for office, by the way.
Quoting romanv
I think that's irrelevant. We're talking about a particular situation.
Quoting romanv
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, and not always just "waste" my vote by voting for some weird third-party candidate.
Quoting romanv
Again, the structure is really irrelevant to me. I don't think there are any inherent merits to any particualr governmental structure. I couldn't care less whether the government is a democracy or not. I care about what the laws are, etc.
Quoting romanv
I think it's unavoidable to be ruled. Unless I'm made king of the world, at least.
Quoting romanv
That's not a bumper sticker that I agree with. Probably because my views are so unusual re what's good. It's not at all the case that letting everyone decide anything is more likely to result in laws that I agree with. I don't agree with most people re what laws we should have.
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.
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.
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.
This is another absurd position to hold. Maybe you are just trolling.
The UK government is legally obliged to be a democracy.
The point of democracy is that we are not ruled, but represented. The inclusion of the NOTA option makes that ideal a reality.
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.
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.
Quoting romanv
One of the observations made by communitarians such as Ivan Illich is that power to change an environment involves not becoming a tiny cog in the forces of production. From his point of view, changing representation, supporting the continuance of useful skills, permitting desirable forms of life are bound up with changing how we make and exchange things.
I don't share Illich's optimism but he does a good job of representing what optimism looks like.
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?
IN a sense, many people do vote for NOTA by not voting at all, but a NOTA slot on the ballot would make for much clearer meaning: No! I don't like the choices offered.
A consequence of NOTA should be that the political conventions (at whatever level) would take more care in choosing candidates--candidates that had a better chance of exceeding the minimum number of confirming votes.
I would have voted for NOTA fairly often in the past, had it been available.
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.
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.
The "as opposed to" option was "having no one in the office."
No matter what we do--keep the old system, try a new one, or have a bloody revolution and end up in chaos--some people will not be acting in good faith. That's just a given. There are liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels in every society, and they tend to fuck things up.
Quoting romanv
NO NO, the environment is NOT better in the USA. The two parties have an iron grip on the status quo. I'm not sure that god can loosen their death grip.
Same thing for responding to a post. Clicking on the left-pointing arrow under the post notifies the person to whom you are responding that you have made a comment.
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.
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.
If you think democracy is meaningless, as you seem to suggest, then you be you.
Justifications period are subjective.
Quoting 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.
Quoting romanv
I don't think so. People putting a cross in the NOTA box could have a variety of reasons for doing so: they might dislike all the candidates, they might dislike all the parties who are standing in their constituency, they might just be disenchanted with something about their country or locale. NOTA is inarticulate, and provides no reason for any party or candidate to change anything. Since the ballot is secret, the candidates will be unable to ask those who voted NOTA why they did it.
Quoting romanv
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.
Quoting romanv
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.
PR first; then let's talk about NOTA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why not toss the he 2 weevils out?
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?
I don't get to choose that because no one agrees with me.
I am not surprised!
Touché.
1. Democracy is best.
2. For democracy to work citizens must vote.
3. To vote everyone must vote for someone.
Ergo you must choose the lesser of two weevils.
https://nota-uk.org/2019/01/07/nota-uk-publishes-definitive-none-of-the-above-white-paper/
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!
The problem only is that "nota" can mean whatever, people wanting even more leftist or even more rightwing policies or simply being "NOT interested at all". As Herg said above: "People putting a cross in the NOTA box could have a variety of reasons for doing so".
Your answer to this:
Quoting romanv
This doesn't make any sense. How on Earth could the "local party activists" know? From elections results that x amount of people voted candidate A, y amount of people voted candidate B and z people voted NOTA? This simply doesn't steer politics into any direction as the NOTA option doesn't give at all any information. And when the objective is to elect actual representatives, one has to pick actual people, not "I opt for better politicians".
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.
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.
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.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I don't think that it's a great idea as a 'must have'.
Are you both non-Tory [I]and[/I] non-Labour? If so, that would make sense. A system other than first-past-the-post would be an advantage to the minor parties and a disadvantage to the two major parties. In terms of justification, as a Labour supporter, I think that Labour's chances of getting into government overrides the arguable unfairness in our first-past-the-post system.
But in reality, that probably ain't gonna happen, because most voters vote for what they're [i]for[/I] rather than what they're [i]against[/I], 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.
Quoting romanv
Well, you asked for critique, but I'm not so sure how willing you are to hear it...
Quoting romanv
Is it incredible, really?
You can see from many examples that voters can make quite a surprise to the parties with so-called "fringe" views becoming suddenly mainstream. That there simply isn't a party that you would really like is reality in many countries.
The fact is the membership in political parties has waned quite universally in the West. For example in my country, where the majority of people belong to some association or many, at the historical height 600 000 were members of political parties (in the early 1980's), but now the membership has declined dramatically. This from a country (Finland) with +5 million people, hence at the height well over 10% of the people did belong to political parties here (which I find amazing today).
In the UK which has over thirteen times the population, members of political parties are is less than a million (with Labour having the largest amount of members, over half a million). That means that something like 1,5% of people in the UK actually are members of political parties.
That political parties have become estranged from the people is a totally true problem. There are positive and negative aspects in that politics have become a profession, that you have career politicians. Above all, membership in political parties is extremely important as the actual membership of the party elects (or ought to elect) the leaders. Unfortunately in some countries political parties are themselves weak and basically are just campaign machines huddled around one politician.
Quoting romanv
Actually it isn't.
You see a political party usually has some core ideology, those beliefs that make it to 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.
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.
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)
Quoting 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?
Quoting 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)
Quoting 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.
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1082312007234260994?s=19&fbclid=IwAR3EqiTJGEMGJGsfaNCK9O_-hsgIjm9jXzEgqEy_JHEHcGM868nMpszE9SA
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.
Quoting romanv
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?
You see, in democracies the elections are the thing that are democratic, not the political parties themselves (which is something many Americans are confused about with their so-called "primaries"). How political parties organize themselves are up to themselves and their members: if the ordinary members haven't a say, it's the problem of the party, not the democratic system. With or without any NOTA option.
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.
Quoting 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.
Your 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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
Quoting 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.
NOTA, I think, would only function well in a single-member electorate - I;m open to hearing how it could be formulated differently for a multi-member electorate.
In Australia, parties are granted funding based upon their percentage of the vote, so a vote for a party who will almost certainly lose in an electorate can still benefit that party more than refusing to vote, especially if they also have candidates in other electorates.
"None of the above" shirks that responsibility.
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.
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.
Nice the see the good Australian word "wanker" gaining ground.
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.
That's pretty crap logic. I guess it was not intended as presenting an argument.
Voting was made compulsory Dow Nunder because hardly anyone turned up to vote on Federation. Did you miss the import of the cock and balls? One can vote informally.
SO stop complaining that you have to vote, when you don't.
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.
Dow Nunder we call spoilt votes informal. And we keep track of numbers. It's about five percent.
Folk in the USA who are pissed off with the system just do not turn up.
So perhaps a better approach for you would be to get as many people as possible to turn up and draw a cock and balls on their ballot.
Easier than changing a law that no one cares about.
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.
But thanks for the chat.
Your writing reeks of being a utter cock, so...
You see, 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.
Jog on mate, jog on. We are done here.
You too mate.
Do you always hang about like a bad smell?
Good insights. I have also identified a crucial need for the ability to vote negatively in a democracy.
Glad you agree. And I bet you don't have smelly feet either. :)
Your response didn't really answer my question. NOTA functions for single-member seats, but I am curious if it could function for multi-member seats. Single-member seats are, in my opinion, flawed.
Saying that a "no" vote on any legislation "aligns with the will of the electorate" is also problematic. Representatives are a collection of fixed outcomes on issues - they are the conduit for ongoing engagement with a constituency. This is completely lost with an empty seat: there is simply no representation at all.
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?
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. As it stands currently, this is not analogous to how representatives behave. Representatives do not always vote in parliaments/assemblies in accordance with their constituents, and this is not always seen as problematic, especially where representatives take on a more 'trustee' representative role and advocate for their constituents' interests without necessarily adhering to their preferred policies. Moreover, sometimes representatives are in a position to inform and educate their constituents. Where representatives are members of parties, electoral lines can become blurrier. In addition, in almost no cases will the majority of voters for a representative have their preferences on issues and legislation align completely with the interests and legislative preferences of a representative.
So the biggest issue here is that representatives are not exact proxies for legislation, and that considering a NOTA vote as a vote against all proposed legislation is therefore not necessarily representative of a NOTA vote.
In a scenario where more than 50% of the legislature is unoccupied, the issue is more serious than NOTA can rectify - NOTA will not necessarily incentivise more responsive representatives. In fact, parties may be motivated to push for NOTA outcomes in various electorates as a type of disenfranchisement. Think about parties who are happy for the government to stall while they push rhetoric. Mainstream parties may be happy to have minor parties swallowed up by NOTA and encourage such.
It sounds like perhaps what you should be aiming for is a system that enables positively, rather than incentivises negatively, more responsive representatives.
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?