NationStates Jolt Archive

One of my puppets got the "Vote For 'None of the Above'?" issue, and I realised it's one that I don't think I've see discussed here.

Here it is, with the options:

A loose coalition of political activists running the gamut of the political spectrum has started a petition to add 'None of the Above' as an option on every ballot, so that a voter can reject all candidates if he feels none of them represent a viable option. If 'None of the Above' wins the election, a new election with all-new candidates would have to be held.
The Debate

1. "It's a simple matter really," says left-wing activist and former rock star Jennifer Washington. "Sometimes when you're voting, all the options suck. Why then should people be forced to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two, or even three or four evils? Adding 'None of the Above' to the ballot would ensure that the people have a choice at all times, even if that choice is to reject the choices they have been given!"

2. "Adding 'None of the Above' to the ballot makes absolutely no sense," contributes conservative political pundit George W. Broadside. "Those who want to run for office have already put their names on the ballot, and if none of those options suits the voter, that's just too bad. Instead, we ought to prevent this sort of problem and limit the number of options. Sure, less people can run, but that will eliminate costly runoff elections completely!"

So, what do the masses of NSG say? Does your real life country have this sort of option or not? Is it a good or bad idea?

Jolly chap, that's an awesome idea. I might use it once or twice (or most likely, always:p). Saves me the trouble of thinking.

In game answer: What is this 'voting' you speak of?

I know that personally, I'm a little disinclined to vote in real world elections because frankly none of the parties appeal to me, and usually I end up voting for a party who opposes the party I dislike the most. I suspect a lot of voter apathy is due to the same feeling of being forced to vote for people they do not approve of.

With that in mind, I actually thought up a system of negative votes: you'd be allowed to not only vote for a party, but to vote against them, a "Not them" vote directly rather than indirectly by supporting a competitor. As in the OP example, if the votes end up negative, then it's time for a new election.

I think the "None of the above" option would help disenchanted people get back involved with the democratic process.

The problem with the way it is suggested in the issue is that it would be very difficult to enforce and would furthermore make a mess of an already messed up political system. It would require completely new candidates if none of the above wins, yes? That would extend elections far past the point they should be held.

That's not to say the idea lacks merit or that it lacks a point, because it doesn't on either count. It simply isn't the way I'd go about handling the situation. Honestly I don't know what way I would use, but I know this wouldn't work.

It would require completely new candidates if none of the above wins, yes? That would extend elections far past the point they should be held.

...which would obviously work out well for incumbents ... especially well-to-do incumbents with certain connections...

...which would obviously work out well for incumbents ... especially well-to-do incumbents with certain connections...

Exactly.

Still, it's not a bad idea per se. What I would suggest is that it be an option, but not an official one. That is, while you can state none of the above, it simply counts as a choice not to vote, and so exists as a statement.

...

But then it would be a statement without power...damn...

Jolly chap, that's an awesome idea. I might use it once or twice (or most likely, always:p). Saves me the trouble of thinking.

In game answer: What is this 'voting' you speak of?

LOL - I'm talking about this in real life not in game. ;)

I know that personally, I'm a little disinclined to vote in real world elections because frankly none of the parties appeal to me, and usually I end up voting for a party who opposes the party I dislike the most. I suspect a lot of voter apathy is due to the same feeling of being forced to vote for people they do not approve of.

With that in mind, I actually thought up a system of negative votes: you'd be allowed to not only vote for a party, but to vote against them, a "Not them" vote directly rather than indirectly by supporting a competitor. As in the OP example, if the votes end up negative, then it's time for a new election.

I think the "None of the above" option would help disenchanted people get back involved with the democratic process.

Indeed this is pretty much why I'm asking. In almost every single US presidential election since I've been eligible to vote, I've been voting the lesser evil ('88, '92, and hopefully this year are the exceptions.)

The problem with the way it is suggested in the issue is that it would be very difficult to enforce and would furthermore make a mess of an already messed up political system. It would require completely new candidates if none of the above wins, yes? That would extend elections far past the point they should be held.

That's not to say the idea lacks merit or that it lacks a point, because it doesn't on either count. It simply isn't the way I'd go about handling the situation. Honestly I don't know what way I would use, but I know this wouldn't work.

It doesn't have to be limited to the exact idea in the issue, but rather I wanted a general discussion of the idea.

...which would obviously work out well for incumbents ... especially well-to-do incumbents with certain connections...

I'm sure there are ways around this. And at worst (or maybe best) leave the office unfilled.

I'm sure there are ways around this. And at worst (or maybe best) leave the office unfilled.

But then it would be a statement without power...damn...
Thankfully, contingency plans come about for these particular instances. And, optimally, default conclusions.
There have been occasions i've read about where positions remained unfilled for a limited amount of time, due peculiar circumstances ...

Back when my mother was attending her University, a new publication came out and it was decided to let the students vote in a poll for the name of the publication. "None of the above" was an option, although I think it was meant to mean "we need to think up a new name" rather than an actual choice.

Needless to say, "None of the above" won the poll and someone with a sense of humor decided that for the next year the publication would carry that name.

You can vote none of the above in the real world -

Spoil your ballot paper ;)

With that in mind, I actually thought up a system of negative votes: you'd be allowed to not only vote for a party, but to vote against them, a "Not them" vote directly rather than indirectly by supporting a competitor. As in the OP example, if the votes end up negative, then it's time for a new election.

Already used. The system of transferable voting that was used in the recent Scottish elections, where you rank your candidates by preference. That way even if the party you have as your first choice does terribly badly, your vote will still count against those you ranked bottom.

I think it can work, because if people don't like their options they just don't vote, better to get them to say none of the above so you know how many people dislike the current political set up, so the politicians would actually have to carry out their policies or else they don't get voted in.

Nevada has a none of the above option on its ballots, although I think the idea is that if it wins, the one with the next highest votes take the position. I've used it a few times when making a statement, and a high none of the above vote count does seem to put the winner on notice that many folks weren't happy with him or her so s/he'd better shape up fast.

Of course Nevada has also settled elections with dice rolls and drawing cards so... :D

I think making it easier to get on the ballot and replacing first past the post is a better idea. There's no point in rerunning elections if it's impossible to get on the ballot in the first place, no?

You can vote none of the above in the real world -

Spoil your ballot paper ;)

Indeed.

The US, British and European electoral systems already have this option. It's called spoiling your ballot.

Register to vote, go to your polling station, and scribble all over your ballot paper.

It is counted as a spoiled ballot, and so communicates a registered voters dissatisfaction with the other options.

This is much better than simply not voting, as it will be just assumed that you are merely lazy or apathetic.

Spoiling your ballot actually makes a statement.

There would be chaos initially, but eventually (it may take a decade or two, politicians are not bright and have trouble learning from experience) someone would get the idea and we would start having candidates of some quality. Either that or we would die as a nation and be resurrected as part of Canada.

Poor old RON never wins anything at our college :(

And erm if you want to vote 'none of the above', why not just spoil your ballot paper? It's not like it's a challenge of any kind.

So, what do the masses of NSG say? Does your real life country have this sort of option or not? Is it a good or bad idea?You mean an actual option? Greece has it. For everyone else, the "none of the above" option consists of either not going voting or invalidating your ballot.

You mean an actual option? Greece has it. For everyone else, the "none of the above" option consists of either not going voting or invalidating your ballot.

Indeed that's exactly what I mean. And according to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above), France, Spain, and Colombia all have "blank vote" options and the Ukraine has (and Russia had) an "against all" option.

Staying home, spoiling one's ballot, and system's like Nevada's don't really work as a proper none of the above, as those all functionally amount to a vote for the winner. Personally, I'd like to see a system wherein the election is restarted, with the previous candidates disallowed (for that particular election). For the US presidency, I'd say call a snap election held in late December.

how Dare You Defile My Meme!!!!

There wouldn't be much point in adding this to the British system. It's easy enough to get onto the ballot here, even for parliamentary elections, so if enough people in any constituency are unhappy with the usual options for a potential 'None of the above' vote to be significant they might as well get together and put up their own candidate (or their own two, or more, rival candidates...) instead. For such independents to win seats in the Commons is very unusual but not completely unknown...

There is no option 8.

I've always like the "None of the Above" option. My ideal would be that if that specific election gets the none of the above, then that elected position would be vacant until the next election.

After all, if that position goes empty, that is one less political zealot that can screw things up during their term.

I've always like the "None of the Above" option. My ideal would be that if that specific election gets the none of the above, then that elected position would be vacant until the next election.

After all, if that position goes empty, that is one less political zealot that can screw things up during their term.

It certainly would be an interesting go of things if the US went sans president for 4 years...