Comments | talk_politics: What about 'None of the above'?

nairiporter in talk_politics

What about 'None of the above'?

Jul 08, 2012 23:20

Here is a situation, much in the spirit of the hypothetical quizzes that Mahnmut often likes to present us with.

Say you are the head of government of your country. Now there is a group of political activists who claim to be representing the "silent majority" of moderate people, who are independent as far as political affiliations go. You realise ( Read more... )

democracy, elections, hypothesis

Comments 21

underlankers July 8 2012, 21:22:29 UTC

I actually think this is one of the few good ideas out of the old Soviet Union and would support this option. IIRC at least in the Gorbachev era there was a None of the Above option and some guys failed to get re-elected because of a majority vote for None of the Above. I just don't know how you'd transfer this into the specific US system in terms of Congress. The Presidency likewise would be difficult because there is a none of the above option, namely having the House of Representatives vote on the next President in the contingency nobody wins an electoral majority.

meus_ovatio July 8 2012, 22:26:53 UTC

People can vote none of the above to some extent already. As for whether or not this would make it for someone to be illegitimate to be on the ballot? I'm against it.

(The comment has been removed)

sophia_sadek July 9 2012, 16:36:01 UTC

This is not as powerful as "none of the above" because it dilutes the voice of dissent. None of the write-in candidates is likely to garner a plurality. It is similar to abstaining from voting altogether.

oportet July 8 2012, 23:55:07 UTC

Say you are the head of government...

Well in that case, no I don't like that option - terrrrrrrible idea.

Since I'm not though, it seems like it could work. I always thought a Borda-count election would work, but probably only if there were 4 or 5 candidates - no more, no less.

nairiporter July 9 2012, 07:58:44 UTC

What is a borda-count election? I'm sorry that I ask, I could probably Wiki it, but still... :-)

oportet July 9 2012, 09:58:28 UTC

It's just ranking the options you are given.

Let's say there are four candidates. You, the voter, put them in order of who you want.

Whoever you rank 1st gets 4 points. 2nd gets 3 points. 3rd gets 2 points. 4th gets 1 point.

Slovenia, Kiribati, and Nauru use this method (I definitely had to wiki that) - along with a bunch of sport's MVP voting (not that one though!)

nairiporter July 9 2012, 10:58:57 UTC

I would tend to side with Nauru and Kiribati then!

Thread 5

allhatnocattle July 9 2012, 00:40:28 UTC

While the STV election system doesn't allow for a NONE OF THE ABOVE option it does present an alternative to WINNER TAKES ALL that is preferred by many. It may put some disgruntled voters at ease over the slate of "less then perfect" candidates much like the WRITE IN CANDIDATE option does.

A problem with democracy is when it works as it's supposed to, it's always a choice imperfect candidates. I don't expect candidates to be perfect candidates, as I've never heard of a perfect person (well, there are mythical exceptions, but they never vote, much less run for office). Fact is we'll always have a electoral choice between jerks of varying degrees. Occasionally there will be a candidate I like very much, but I've never accepted everything somebody believes in and stands for.

Perhaps perfection is not what this NONE OF THE ABOVE folks expect. They can accept certain flaws. What they can't accept is a slate of candidates who are all of the same side of the political spectrum. I mean that's the problem I see with USA politics... that ( ... )