What if we could vote None of the Above?
Yeah, I know, it's not possible to pick "None of the Above", for the simple reason that such an option isn't available on the ballot. Well, here in my backward country at the ass of geography, our ruling folks (who are obviously geniuses when it comes to winning elections; ruling the country afterwards is quite another story) have decided to introduce such an option. A None of the Above box on the ballot, which voters could tick. And it will count as a real vote, as opposed to casting an empty ballot. The number of None of the Above votes will be part of the total number of real ballots cast on our upcoming presidential election (yeah, we have those too) - and this bears much larger repercussions than some might be suspecting
Moreover, this new stipulation was introduced in parallel to adopting a very controversial and yet watered-down version of the compulsory voting (I say "watered down", because the only sanction for those who don't vote would be to remove them from the voter lists for the next election, but they could easily return there through filing a simple request - although removing uninterested voters from the voting lists would arguably benefit the core bases of the fringe parties and the ethnic Turkish party, which has hugely relied on Roma voters who could easily be manipulated and cheaply bought... long story).
Many have suspected an attempt for rigging the election system behind this move on part of our ruling party, because when you're required by law to vote, naturally the turnout would be much higher than usual (the usual being way below 40%). And they've conveniently added ANOTHER stipulation in the law, saying that if the turnout is 50%+, the candidate who ranks first would win the election outright - without a second round, and without a need for collecting 51% of the votes on the first round. So if a candidate finishes first with, say, 33% of the vote, but the turnout is 52%, they win immediately, and there's no need for a re-run. Apparently, the ruling party's candidate, as poor a selection as she may have been, is expected to be the front-runner in that respect. Sneaky, eh?
Yeah, but what if... what if MOST people voted for None of the Above, and it became the winner on the first round? What if None of the Above gets those, say, 33% of the votes from the example above? Well, our new law says, the next REAL candidate in the ranking wins. But what if that stipulation wasn't there, and None of the Above could be a legitimate winner? Let's just fantasize for a while. What if no candidate is picked by the voters, and deliberately so? And SHOULDN'T such an option be available to the electorate? After all, if the majority of them feel neither of the myriad of available candidates represents them, shouldn't they be able to require a new set of candidates by voting None of the Above? Aren't laws supposed to serve people's interests, rather than the ruling clique's interests? (Sorry, I'm asking rhetorical questions now).