None of the Above!

Ok, why the heck hasn't any democratic system come up with the idea of letting citizens who are sick of all the candidates pick a "none of the above" option? Seriously, if all the candidates suck send 'em back to the polls and draw new candidates.

I dunno. Perhaps it would cause more trouble than its worth. It would provide a convenient way for someone to take control. "Oh, well, it looks like the people can't decide. I guess I'll be dictator for awhile, then..."

Of course, that's really rather unlikely, but... perhaps just because it wouldn't get used? Most people would vote for a candidate listed, just because why waste more time than necessary? Even if it might get you better candidates, most people can't be bothered, unfortunately...

Well, I was thinking of doing it instead of compulsory voting. If the choice of candidates really is so bad you can't bring yourself to vote for any of them, maybe you need better candidates...

Obviously, yes, that brings the question of "what the hell do you do with the incumbent?"

Leave him flapping in the breeze.

Yeah, but if the election goes to "none of the above", you either have to leave the incumbent in place for a while, leading to a boost in term length, or you need to strip him of his powers, potentially leaving an empty seat. Now that works fine for parliamentary systems where it just means one constituency has to battle on until things get worked out there, but imagine if this happened during a presidential election?

Unless you can create an administrative backbone capable of carrying out basic functions and adjustments without the government. But you still have no democratic leader, you're just saddled with an emergency group of civil servants instead of the guy nobody wants and nobody can agree who to replace with.

More problematic than "what do you do with the incumbent?", which only becomes a problem if (s)he wasn't running for re-election (because if (s)he was, (s) was one of the candidates), is "what do you do with the position?" Leave it unfilled? That would work for some positions, but there are others where it would cause a real problem. Have another election? That gets expensive, and time-consuming. Appoint someone? That raises a whole slew of problems — if the electorate was so factionalized that NOTA won, it's highly likely that the other elected officials are also highly factionalized.

edited 2nd Aug '11 5:25:24 AM by Madrugada

In Serbia, a regular participant in all parliamentary elections is a troll party named "Nijedan od ponuđenih odgovora" ("None of the Above Answers"), which is always the last on the ballot.

Haha, awesome.

There doesn't seem to be a huge difference between "none of the above" and an empty ballot or not showing up ... in terms of improvement to the political process, that's far from top of the list. I'd much prefer seeing run-off elections in the US.

@ OP, because it would undermine the party in powers position if they constantly get no confidence votes.

@OP There is - the state of Nevada has that option for all the high-level elections (President, Governor, Senate, Congress) but typically, it only gets maybe 3% of the votes. People would rather vote for the half-bad candidate over the all-bad candidate and either over no one at all.

I find it kind of funny that people would opt for a choice that is deliberately less useful than any of the available political parties on the ballot.

God damn it, people can be stupid.

It's not stupid. It's a way of making your opinion of the candidates known.

It's not worth it unless you think all the available candidates are completely worthless, though.

Actually, no, it is stupid.

I don't mind people casting votes for third parties or whatever, as long as you're actually voting. But voting null (which is a thing you can do, though the method varies from state to state) is completely pointless and serves only to clog up the ballot system. If you don't want to vote, stay home.

"This vote is not worth my time" is a valid opinion, which should be heard.

And yes, skip the whole problem and implement run-off voting.

edited 2nd Aug '11 7:28:54 AM by Yej

But staying home just means you'll get ignored altogether.

And what do you think is going to happen if you write "fuck y'all" on the ballot?

Maybe things are different in the UK, I won't pretend I'd know, but here it's generally better to just not bother to get out of bed. Especially since 'frivolous votes' are not even counted and tallied in some places.

Oh, well, I'm talking about this hypothetically being a legit thing that will be counted and tallied.

As to what writing "fuck y'all" on the ballot will achieve, it's your chance to say "fuck y'all" to a bunch of useless candidates, of course.

Huh? Thailand has that...dunno about other places though...

Although...the election that's just done is the only time I see campaigning for voting none of the above...

It is stupid. It's pointless and counterproductive. And juvenile.

Look at it this way. In every election there is guaranteed to be one candidate that's better than another. Public policy is an incredibly important matter with the potential to influence many, many lives.

It's a sheer waste of all that went in to creating and implementing the very concept of democracy in society. It's terribly irresponsible to just say "fuck y'all" on some juvenile whim just because you're frustrated about the state of politics. It helps no-one.

So if you disagree with everyone you still have to choose one? Why is choosing none at all a bad thing? Sometimes, people just disagree, y'know...

Yeah! ◊

Be that as it may, it still doesn't change a thing about the situation. It's no less impractical a decision to make. It's crap.

Awesome.

edited 2nd Aug '11 8:11:25 AM by Gault

Such is my experience, admittedly, but "better" is both a subjective concept and a relative term.

It's a way of protesting. Isn't that what democracy is about? Making your views known? If you don't like the candidates, you should be able to say so.

Well, it does send a very strong message to the next round of candidates that if they don't change something fundamental in their policies and put up candidates with some credibility, they're not going to get the job.

They won't but their political opponent will. Great job, guy!