|
Not here. You can actually spoil your ballot by writing such on the paper, or vote for every candidate. But that does not have any real effect on the outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Was introduced in India about 10 years ago, as an electoral reform. Not sure whether it has made any big difference till now. But at least, there's such a choice for the voter.
The Constitution of India allows any citizen to contest, and it is interesting to see that a number of candidates get lesser than NOTA itself.
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, in some cases, NOTA came in second!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know you had that in India - very sensible.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
An example election result is here - my constituency - Bangalore North, in the recently concluded Indian Parliament Elections.
Election Commission of India [^]
Look at the NOTA numbers at the end.
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: an option called NOTA (None Of The Above) on the ballot paper? We have such an option in India.
A brilliant idea! If we implemented it in Israel, I suspect it would come first by a large margin!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
In Norway (and I believe in several other countries), you can use a blank ballot with no names; that goes for the same, although it is less explicit. A 'blank vote' is a standard term in Norwegian, used in a lot of contexts other than elections. I believe English is similar - but of course, English may differ a lot from English.
In Norway, we have a proportional voting system (as opposed to 'winner takes all'). If a party gets x% of the total number of votes, it gets x% of the seats. You picked a list from one party, with an ordered sequence of candidates: If x% of the seats comes to n representatives, the top n candidates on the list are awarded the seats.
You have a chance to affect the ordering on the list: If you add a '+' to a candidate, he receives an extra point in the ordering. If lots of voters all double the same candidate, he might rise to a position among the n to be awarded a seat.
In the old days, you could also cross out a candidate, reducing his points in the ordering of the list. For several elections, I voted for a party that was not my #1 favorite, but I wanted to use the party list where I had an option to cross out this one candidate.
Today, you are not allowed to cross anyone out, but this one candidate is no longer among the party's candidates, so it doesn't really matter. Now I pick another party list when voting, since I no longer have an incentive to go for my second choice just to get a chance to cross out this fellow.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
I figure that if you don't vote then you lose the right to complain about the government you do get. So get out there and - or spoil your ballot.
Personally, I'd like to see a compulsory "none of the above" option at the bottom of all ballots. If it wins the seat, nobody is elected and everybody on the ballot is banned from public office for ten years. If "None of the above" wins the whole election, you have to restart with new candidates until we get ones the voters trust ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that I have that choice, and by not voting I have effectively spoiled my ballot. And I've been complaining since John Major's time, but it hasn't made any difference.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I figure that if you don't vote then you lose the right to complain about the government you do get
I've always believed in that, even when the choices were limited to the lesser of two evils. Apathy is what leads to poor choices. I've never skipped an election since I was old enough to vote.
OriginalGriff wrote: a compulsory "none of the above" option at the bottom of all ballots. If it wins the seat, nobody is elected and everybody on the ballot is banned from public office for ten years
Now that I like a lot, as it sends a clear message to all candidates.
A big subject of discussion around here a few months ago (where I physically live, not here on CP) was how a number of mayors and politicians at various levels were quitting because they couldn't handle the constant abuse they were getting from their constituency. Consider the oldest joke in the world is that you can tell a politician is lying because his lips are moving. There's a reason people are fed up, and they only have to look inwards to find out why they're hated so much nowadays.
Then they get themselves a security detail, at the expense of the same tax payers. That ain't helping.
|
|
|
|
|
An old colleague of mine proposed that in addition to the ability to vote for and candidate you could alternatively cast a vote against a candidate. Meaning you still only cast a single vote, but can choose either for or against a particular candidate.
A candidate's count was total votes for minus votes against. A negative total count (or zero) disqualified a candidate from serving. If there were no positive counts a new election is held in which no candidate who received a negative count can run.
I've always thought this was an idea well worth a trial.
|
|
|
|
|
Bit like the Mercan election, to choose between the decayed and the corrupt.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
Except here we have decay and corruption on both sides.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That should make the decision trivial!
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.
Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Corruption is endemic in all politicians; some of them are insufficiently decayed.
I suggest that we borrow a leaf from the American Democratic party and allow only the the dead to stand for election. The advantages are manifold:
- No expenses for security
- No action by the politicians (I'm of the opinion that anything they do is bad)
- No corruption (other than that of the flesh)
- No bloviating or filibusters
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
It's worth voting to try and ensure an effective opposition.
If the landslide is too big then they will be unopposed and then the hard left will be emboldened and it will be as bad as the hard right have been since the 2019 landslide that gave the hard right the upper hand in internal party politics. At least with centrists, corrupt or otherwise, you get some sort of livable stability where companies invest and the market behaves normally (as far as we can call traders normal). Without that stability the UK is in for years of hard right hard left ping pong between zealots and that will be benefit nobody and further condemn the UK to continue its slide into irrelevance on the international political scene.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with some of what you say, but I had better not get into a discusion so Chris does not have to come at me with the big stick. 
|
|
|
|
|
A few states in the US are using ranked choice voting where you rank your first choice, second choice , …
The two big parties are opposed as it would allow people to vote for a smaller party without throwing away their vote. If your first choice outlier candidate fails in the first pass, your vote moves to your second choice.
The big drawback is that it would be harder to audit. 6 candidates yields 6! permutations.
“Trust the election software”
|
|
|
|
|
That has also been considered over here but would probably lead to the chaos that some other countries go through where they never have a proper majority government.
|
|
|
|
|
US has some rather sketchy voting history.
We have a quote from Chicago politics "Vote early and often", Al Capone, Mayor Daley
In Texas, LBJ got some his votes from deceased voters.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard that argument a lot, "I don't like the current government, but I like the alternatives even less!"
Fact is, the party you'd like to like, but currently don't, isn't delivering, but the party you love to hate doesn't get a chance.
So the current course obviously isn't working and the alternative may surprise you (if you'd give it a chance).
By the way, it's like that everywhere.
We've had our elections a few months ago and this week we finally got a new prime minister (after fourteen years!).
People were fed up with the government and decided to vote something else.
France did the same.
Italy and Slovakia too, a while back.
Mostly "eXtrEMe nAzI RiGht!!1" (if the media/left is to be believed).
Whether they're left, right, nazi, populist, or all of the above, they all have two things in common: they're anti-immigration and EU-skeptic.
It's almost as if the voter is trying to say something 
And while politics are pretty bad everywhere (at least in Europe), America takes the cake.
Man, that's bad! (or maybe  is more appropriate, at this point I don't even know anymore).
|
|
|
|
|
You are right of course, but at my age I have seen most of the possible alternatives in this country. And the only one I liked was swept away by the "liberal" left after a few years. Interestingly, a so-called moderate has just been elected President of Iran. And France have their deciding vote tomorrow. As the old Chinese curse says, "may you live in interesting times". 
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: As the old Chinese curse says, "may you live in interesting times"
Interesting times indeed!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
