"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? "
If you have a decent preference / ranking voting system, then that should encourage a diversity of candidates from the outset.
If a voter still can't commit to backing any of those candidates, then there's not much reason to believe that much would change if the options were reset. You'd just end up with a whole bunch of people voting 'none of above' because each of their differing ideal candidates weren't in the running that particular time
( ... )
But what if "none of these candidates represents my opinions" is actually the most popular option? Why should the majority be forced to put up with someone who clearly isn't preferred by them?
That stance only makes sense if you are expecting an exact match... but democracy isn't meant to be a tyranny of the individual citizen.
For example, none of the candidates who ran in my constituency were a particularly good match for my personal politics... but I neither expected them to be nor wanted them to be. The candidates in my constituency are aiming to secure a place in government by being the best representative for 'most people' in my constituency. That means that they have to run on a platform with broad (rather than individual) appeal.
That may leave a lot of people feeling like none of these candidates are especially appealing or worth getting excited about... maybe even a majority of people. However, a shared discontent is nothing to build a government around given that a far-left socialist and a far-right libertarian might both be within this 'majority of people'.
Here's the deal. 45% vote for None of the Above. 32% vote for Hillary. 20% vote for Trump. 3% vote for other candidates. Shouldn't the None of the Above have a say here? Shouldn't such a result mean that new candidates should run, until the people recognize one of them as their favorite?
I think it depends on where the choices come from - is there a primary process there like here, or do the parties just nominate without input from the people?
If the people didn't have a say in the choices - I like the idea. But here (as much as I like the idea of more options or a 'none of the above') - Hillary and Trump earned this. Despite their flaws - they did more, they wanted it more - they beat Marco and Bernie and the other 20 or so - they deserve it, and we deserve them.
If you have mandatory voting (ugh!), then I think a "None of the Above," option is quite reasonable, even morally necessary.
For what its worth, we already have a "NOTA" option in the US, it is called a "Write-in" candidate. People regularly write in "NOTA" or "Mickey Mouse," just in very, very small numbers.
For the US, the Constitution shunts all crazy hypothetical election outcomes into the House of Representatives where each state delegation casts a ballot as a whole. There are some crazy dream fulfillment fantasies out there where Evan McMullin wins Utah and denies both Clinton and Trump the 270 electoral votes necessary to be designated the winner. Then the question goes to the House (GOP controlled) and after a few failed ballots the consensus rests on McMullin and our country can finally awake from this long national nightmare. A guy can dream can't he?
Comments 16
If you have a decent preference / ranking voting system, then that should encourage a diversity of candidates from the outset.
If a voter still can't commit to backing any of those candidates, then there's not much reason to believe that much would change if the options were reset. You'd just end up with a whole bunch of people voting 'none of above' because each of their differing ideal candidates weren't in the running that particular time ( ... )
Reply
Reply
For example, none of the candidates who ran in my constituency were a particularly good match for my personal politics... but I neither expected them to be nor wanted them to be. The candidates in my constituency are aiming to secure a place in government by being the best representative for 'most people' in my constituency. That means that they have to run on a platform with broad (rather than individual) appeal.
That may leave a lot of people feeling like none of these candidates are especially appealing or worth getting excited about... maybe even a majority of people. However, a shared discontent is nothing to build a government around given that a far-left socialist and a far-right libertarian might both be within this 'majority of people'.
Reply
Here's the deal. 45% vote for None of the Above. 32% vote for Hillary. 20% vote for Trump. 3% vote for other candidates. Shouldn't the None of the Above have a say here? Shouldn't such a result mean that new candidates should run, until the people recognize one of them as their favorite?
Reply
If the people didn't have a say in the choices - I like the idea. But here (as much as I like the idea of more options or a 'none of the above') - Hillary and Trump earned this. Despite their flaws - they did more, they wanted it more - they beat Marco and Bernie and the other 20 or so - they deserve it, and we deserve them.
Reply
> and we deserve them
That I agree with. My fave quotation is that each nation deserves exactly the politicians and rulers that it gets.
Reply
Reply
For what its worth, we already have a "NOTA" option in the US, it is called a "Write-in" candidate. People regularly write in "NOTA" or "Mickey Mouse," just in very, very small numbers.
For the US, the Constitution shunts all crazy hypothetical election outcomes into the House of Representatives where each state delegation casts a ballot as a whole. There are some crazy dream fulfillment fantasies out there where Evan McMullin wins Utah and denies both Clinton and Trump the 270 electoral votes necessary to be designated the winner. Then the question goes to the House (GOP controlled) and after a few failed ballots the consensus rests on McMullin and our country can finally awake from this long national nightmare. A guy can dream can't he?
Reply
Leave a comment