The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > None of the above > Comments

None of the above : Comments

By Alan Tapper, published 18/10/2010

We should include a 'None of the above' option on all election ballot papers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I'd like optional preferential voting back, so I can vote for who I want but exclude those who are repugnant to me.
Posted by Candide, Monday, 18 October 2010 11:17:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What and the current two party dictatorship would actually have to fight for real votes with real policies against small irrelavant parties and independants who actually attract real people to their cause and just might get voted in by the few percent of the electorate vitally interested enough to want to vote! Get real.

DKit
Posted by dkit, Monday, 18 October 2010 1:31:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Alan, but my recent vote was ONE of the above, but not the other two. Of course it would have been deemed informal. But if 8% of us did that, it might get the attention of complacent parties.

Nevertheless, I think your proposal addresses some of the problem of "you must fill all the boxes".
Posted by Geoff Davies, Monday, 18 October 2010 1:57:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So let me get this straight, your version of "none of the above" would only mean that the people who voted NOTA would be officially recognized- but the second largest party would get in, and hopefully be feeling very silly about it (assuming they could even give a toss as opposed to realize that they now only have to pander to an ever smaller ratio of swinging voters)?

This will not work- our system's problem is that the party with the MOST sitting members in Parliament (a gravely skewed ratio compared to those of where the votes actually went) automatically become the supreme government body who can have ultimate say in every corner of our lives for the next three years.
As such, there is the compulsion to vote 'the least bad of the two likely to get in'

Instead, I endorse
-Voluntary voting (because some people can actually be neutral or not care)
-Optional preferential voting
-Completely redefine the government and how we vote for them to make it more democratic (such as directly elected executive portfolios and possibly scrap parliament, or automatically make ALL of parliament the executive instead of one minority).
-CIR- to completely suppress and override politician motions that get out of line.

There is simply no function for NOTA, either;
1- it doesn't actually affect candidates
2- it disqualifies, say, so many (or all parties) but leaves others to form government, creating a new system of hegemony that rides the back of ignorant schmucks thinking that NOTA is an important message
3- it disqualifies ALL government in the election, leaving us with no government at all- meaning either the past government fills in (leaving them in power), or calls a new election until people get sick of it (and are more likely to vote a major).

The problem with so many people thinking about political reform is that they are off in lala-land believing that politicians are only socially aloof at the very worst, and could be shaken back into 'understanding what's important' by a bit of symbolism.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 18 October 2010 1:57:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186356

Candide, i disagree with both of you. Optional preferential voting is a bad idea.

If you are not intellectually capable of deciding which of the 2 Major Mistakes is the least worst of the 2 objectionable alternatives? If you are determinedly, so inclined then the NOTA option should be what you are doing & available to you.

Don't you enjoy putting the 2 worst candidates Last & Second Last? I do.

Gday Alan, on the right track.

Some holes in your arguments.

1, Not in the senate election process. There are more than enough minor party alternatives, providing diversity of political views & Candidate Quality. Its just impossible for any voter, to not be able to find a minor party or independent candidate worthy of being given a chance.

2, Whats the point if there is no sanction? If the NOTA vote reaches a set minimum level, say 15%, then all parties must be forced to replace their candidates with better Quality individuals who are better known, more acceptable in the electorate & they must replace their policies with more widely accepted alternatives.

3, Electoral reform must go inside the parties, for selection of candidates & policy. The only reason a decent honest candidate like Barnaby Joyce or Pauline Hanson ever makes it into parliament is because all 4 of the Major Mistakes, Labour, liberal, Red/green or national, believe the seat is unwinnable, at best marginal.

For Safe seats they always do an extensive vetting process to make sure, they have a Dishonest, Corruptible, Scumbag or "Conga Line of S*@#holes".

4, a better alternative for non compulsory voting might be to offer a tax cut to "Good, or More Committed Citizens" who are willing to vote, do jury duty, Attend/Vote at Local Government meetings, etc.

Debates on electoral reform are ignored by Myopic Barracker's on both sides of Politics.

Do they wonder why 90% of the population are so disillusioned with Politicians, Bureaucrooks, Plus the Academics & Journalists who support them?

Friday, 05/11/2010, "Cracker Night" night is rapidly approaching.
Posted by Formersnag, Monday, 18 October 2010 2:29:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All too true, Formersnag. Ofcourse,"they [do not]wonder why...",for the reasons you have given, and why they are united in opposition to NOTA. Leslie
Posted by Leslie, Monday, 18 October 2010 4:34:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not sure about NOTA. Politicians already see informal votes as no threat. Wouldn't they see NOTA in the same light, only just more of the cranky, inept, can't be bothered and so on?
My preference is non-compulsory, non-preferential voting.I hate this business of numbering all boxes knowing my vote might end up with someone whose policies I loathe.
My theory is that if politicians had to persuade voters to the ballot box they might devise better policies, sell them clearly and honestly and those policies would have to fit with the concerns of the everyman.
None of this will happen without thoroughgoing reform of political parties. Having once been a member of a party I am only too aware of just how undemocratic they are.
When grassroot members get agitated about not having a say in policy, politicians of the party canvass ideas which they then ignore.
Often a local candidate, sometimes a longterm member of the party with much experience is outvoted by head office because they prefer a more maleable candidate ahead of the principled one.
I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think NOTA is it.
Posted by Ibbit, Monday, 18 October 2010 5:05:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Alan Tapper,

So far no one has proved that ours is a Democracy.

All the uncorrupted among Australians would be able to prove the contrary.

The fault is not in the way we vote, it is in the fact that we vote.

Why vote when we cannot achieve Democracy?

Year after year we have gone through this senseless ritual, mindlessly. If we cannot change any thing by voting please let us stop the charade. At least will save the paper
Posted by skeptic, Monday, 18 October 2010 5:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag, if you FORCE people to vote for a party, you do not have democracy.

Worse, compulsory preferences effectively pervert the process to reinforce the hegemony of Liberal and Labor by making everyone vote for THEM.

If I don't like Liberal or Labor, I deserve the right to terminate my vote upon the candidate or party I would chance putting into government, and I am quite happy that this vote ultimately raises the profile of a minor instead of helping a party I don't actually support at all;
-For the sole reason, I might add, to placate the paranoid "must-vote-for-least-worst-major-to-ensure-worst-worst-doesn't-get-in" crowd, who are very much to blame for why Australian politics is in the sorry state it is now.

To put it bluntly, I'm helping the most detrimental voting discourse that makes this country worse.

There should also be no incentive or disincentive to vote- I would find it preferable that election day would attract people interested in politics or concerned about our governance, than someone who doesn't care and is only signing his name up for a handout (or avoiding a fine).
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 18 October 2010 10:11:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps electorates in which NOTA received the lion's share of votes could get what they wish - no representation for the next term of parliament. That would be democratic. It might also compel some of those who are absolutely disgusted with the options available to them to run for parliament as an alternative.

If an MP can get in despite being the second most popular option (the most popular being NOTA), then what does s/he care about the NOTA vote?
Posted by Otokonoko, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 12:27:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skeptic,

I hear your anger and frustration and empathise with it.

Prior to elections we get a party spiel about what they will or will not do, the moment they are elected, the reverse is often the case.

This is, not democracy but a form of dictatorship.

The fact that we vote in elections does not make us a democracy in the fullest sense. Freedoms such as speech, rule of law, religion, do, and some of those are not in our constitution but have become accepted as if they were.

What we see now is a gradual erosion of the freedoms and censures (legal system) we value and this really does put us on a slippery slope to something other than democracy.

Who is to blame for this? The short answer - all of us. The longer follows:

1. Politicians - they lie. They act on their own ideas as opposed to the majority view which they are happy to ignore.

2. The media (most of it and particularly the electronic tabloids) because they are lazy, biased, don't report fact, think opinion is what we need to hear and generally abdicate their role of impartial informers.

3. The education system at all levels which tends to be more focused on what unions think and want and brainwashing students rather than objectivity and teaching good analysis such that a student, of any age, is equiped to form their own opinions.

4. Voters because and are apathetic. We should develop a culture of protest (non-violent) and really let politicians know what we think of their policies. The farmers and others caught up in the water furore are an example of this. They have the government scared and it is now about to undertake a review of the MDWR as a consequence of their anger.

I'm sure others could add to the list.

It goes without saying that, at bottom, democracy is corruptible because it is about power for the few at the expense of the majority.
Posted by Ibbit, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 8:36:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm surprised that Albert Langer wasn't mentioned in the article and hasn't been in comments here either yet...
Posted by alee, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 10:14:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186365

dkit, well said.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186368

Geoff Davies, Yes but at the recent Federal election. The number of blank papers reached 6% across the board, as high as 14% in some formerly safe getup/labour Clayton's Communist Coalition electorates.

The ALP leadership has been falling all over itself to say, "we have gotten the message", but are still storming ahead with all the policies that caused this disenchantment of former ALP Voters.

This occurred because Mark Latham told disgruntled ex ALP voters who are not Loony, Lefties, to avoid the Red/greens & leave their papers blank.

He could have said, vote DLP & preference the Liberals. He could have even, taken the high moral ground & said vote for any minor party or independent & preference the least worst of the 2 Major Mistakes, but instead he gave the ALP some time to straighten themselves out.

But instead they have moved even further towards pure Communism with the Evil Red/greens who want to steal from the poor & give to the "International Banksters" with an ETS, Economic Treason Scam.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186369

KH, i agree with most of your first comment, but if that is how you feel then why did the Loony, Left opt to destroy the http://www.democrats.org.au/ who did not direct preferences, but handed out double sided HTV Cards, allowing swinging voters to make up their own mind?

Why did the Red/greens routinely opt to preference the ALP even when they were going against Red/green policy. EG, Travesty crossing Dam?

As for your last paragraph most people want to get on with their own lives & be led by somebody they see as being a strong, intelligent, ethical leader who will genuinely try to do the "Right" thing by the majority (60% to 90%) of the population.

This is why the problems you decry has produced a progressively more volatile vote over the last 30 years. The next federal election will see them turn decisively on the Red/greens.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 1:32:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag, none of this has anything to do with voter preferences (that is, preferencing by voters and NOT by politicians), or specifically why voters should be denied the right to allocate preferences as they (not somebody else) sees fit?
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 1:36:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186394

Leslie, thank you. How do you feel about "Cracker Night"?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186399

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186439

ibbit twice, Both excellent comments. How do you feel about "Cracker Night"?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186403

skeptic, you are being too cynical & negative, i have often felt the same way, but decent citizens like us here on this blog site are making a difference right now.

The MSM has a lot to answer for, but blog sites like OLO & good, open, talk back radio like http://www.4bc.com.au/ & http://www.2ue.com.au/ are working.

How do you feel about "Cracker Night"?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186422

KH again, the worst/worst scenario does work, look at what the Red/greens have done to the getup/labour Clayton's Communist Coalition. Think about how influential a "straight down the middle of the road" Centrist party could be if it got 20% to 30% of the vote, held the senate balance & could use its preferences to hurt or help the 2 Major Mistakes.

The "Carrot & the Stick" also works. Which is why the Red/greens ETS or Carbon Tax will never work. Its a great big stick without even trying any Carrots first.

How do you feel about "Cracker Night"?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186429

Otokonoko, yeah but what about NOTA minimums of say 15% forcing a rerun in that seat?

How do you feel about "Cracker Night"?
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 2:11:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like the idea of a NOTA vote and even more the idea by Formersnag that if the NOTA vote reaches a certain threshold then a new election has to be held for that seat - the people are given the power to decide for once (though the costs involved with new elections could dissuade support for the NOTA vote). Perhaps 15% may be too low? How about 50% or if the NOTA vote is the top result.

At the very least, the NOTA vote would send a market signal to political parties and would-be politicians that a section of the electorate is up for grabs.

Also for everyone who doesn't like compulsory voting or compulsory preferential voting:

1) Without compulsory voting, political parties would figure out the demographic of people that actually vote and would not bother making policies for non-voters, or only token policies. Why spend time drawing up policies if there will be no buyers?

2) Compulsory Preferential Voting makes us choose, for better or worse. Queensland has optional preferential voting (OPV): http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/voting.aspx?id=91
If you read carefully, you will see that ballots that do not indicate a second or third preference are "exhausted" and taking out of the total (ie if you vote for a minor party candidate or independent who has very little chance of winning then your vote will in essence be uncounted). Might as well not indicate a preference at all. Ex-Premier Beattie knew this very well and the ALP ran a "Just Vote 1" campaign sometime in the '90s. If I remember the news reports correctly, a lot of non-ALP voters "just voted 1" and their votes were exhausted, leading to ALP candidates winning comfortably. In essence OPV favours the major parties...

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 3:29:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formoersnag- no, branch-stacking majors to keep out the pesky minors you don't personally like is absolutely no justification for forcing other people to vote for maintaining the major party YOU prefer;

Again, another hegemonic reinforcement based on a shaky assumption that it's simply "better" that way, when the result is that the major parties now realize they can get away with being as underperforming as they like knowing that people who don't support them are still forced to put them in government.

Jorge
1- Politicians already do that;
Aware that they can be reassured knowing that they can pass an election by wooing uninformed conscripted voters by throwing spooky stereotypes about what the other party "really" stands for, they also, effectively thanks to our structure of voting, only cater to the whims of electorates that MAY vote for them, or demographics that MAY vote for them- effectively making the most gullible or extreme fringe the target audience for policy.

2- Both of you are missing the point- I do not CARE that my vote does not affect the outcome of the majors, that is the entire point- I do not want it to. I do not support these parties thus I do not want to vote for them. I am happy to vote my truly preferred candidates first, then decide the largest party (regardless of how small) I would ever want to support (whether going from Labor, Coalition, Greens, Democrats).
All because, despite evidence to the contrary that the only difference is spending competence, both majors govern rather consistently, despite the bizarre hysteria from either side that insist their opponents will 'destroy' the nation THIS time.

So far I'm not even getting real arguments, just a belief that certain parties are so horrible that people should not be allowed to vote for them.

It's truly sad that neither of you actually believe in democracy- otherwise you would not feel the need to suppress other people's voting rights.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 6:12:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza,

In response,
1. True, so don't vote. You don't have to. All you have to do is show up and get your name marked off. Is that such a strenous thing to do once a year or so? As citizens we could at least carry out this simple civic duty. From what I understand, the NOTA vote would simply legitimise and allow for counting of the "on purpose" protest, non-vote, as opposed to lumping mistakes and blank protests together. Also the NOTA vote would help in reducing the "protest" vote that artificially inflates the results of certain candidates.

2. Ok, so you don't care if your vote is exhausted. That's fine. I'm sure there are plenty of people who agree with you. If enough people were to follow your lead and we were to have OPV then in the unlikely (though getting more likely) event that three or four candidates get roughly equal votes and few of them indicate a second preference, then we have a seat that is in effect decided by a tiny proportion of voters. I know it's an extreme example, but if I understand you correctly then this is the option that you are proposing:

Candidate A: 25%
Candidate B: 20%
Candidate C: 22%
Candidate D: 27%
Candidate E: 6%

For simplicity let's say these are all valid votes and Candidate E's, B's and C's supporters do not indicate a preference. The seat is decided by 27% of valid votes with 73% of voters not favouring the winner. Is this democracy?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 7:37:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1- No, that is unnacceptable and petty. If you are satisfied with people leaving blank ballot boxes, why drag them out of their homes just to put on a charade? As for civic duty- your point? I would rather this duty were performed by people that were actually concerned enough to motivate themselves willingly to vote, and thus more likely to inform themselves of their candidates, than somebody only doing it to avoid a fine and randomly voting on a whim based on whatever they heard on the radio.
Do you seriously believe the politicians actually CARE if people vote NOTA? Let me tell you something- only if they're part of the third most popular option- if they were the second they would love it.

2- You do realize, jorge, that this is exactly what we have right now, do you? The Liberal or Labor coalition governments barely scrape 39% on average each. Usually we are run by a government to which 60% or more of the public voted AGAINST. The fact that we elect electoral representative parliaments to vote in government amongst themselves on our BEHALF means that the overall voting of the nation is skewed to the largest minority per electorate. If 25% voted Liberal in every electorate, 15% Labor, 5% Green and 55% other, we would have all of Parliament staffed entirely with Liberal candidates. Furthermore, we are all prevented from voting for people we might actually support by this system as they are confined to local electorates that might have different priorities.
Yet this does not bother you much more?
Either way, you cannot use this to justify forcing people to PRETEND to vote.
Also, in many other countries, if people voted the way you described, those parties would be automatically formed into a coalition government.

So far my last post still sums up exactly the problem; and I was forced to repeat myself using easier words to understand and try to describe how our system actually works- which seems to be the problem with the NOTA supporters- THEY clearly had an entirely different presumption.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 8:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186556

KH, with respect the only minor parties to preference the ALP were the Red/greens & Socialist Alliance. The "Others" vote, increased quite significantly.

Mark Latham conned 14% of very disgruntled, EX Labour voters in some formerly safe ALP electorates, who also did not want the Red/greens either to leave their ballot papers blank.

There are several minor parties out there whose public declaration of principles is basically, we are what the ALP was 50 or 60 years ago before it was taken over by CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists & their Fabian friends.

If those voters had been given better leadership they could have voted that way & a huge majority of them would have preferenced the LNP.

I have very little faith in the LNP but at least they are not Paedophiles & the accountants among them can count to 43 Billion.
Posted by Formersnag, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 1:00:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza,

Complete freedom of choice is great, but..

1. Is it really that hard to go out, take a walk/drive to a polling place? You can pre-non-vote if you want too. As for civic duty, very little is asked of us as citizens and it's not as if Australia is a Stalinist state. What do you think about jury duty?

Also, when you say: "...only if they're part of the third most popular option- if they were the second they would love it." I think you mean that if Party B is third after NOTA and Party A, then Party B would care - wouldn't this be good?

2. I was trying to show that without preferential voting then 73% of people had absolutely no say in who won. With preferential voting we can work out which candidate the electorate prefers. So, while a majority of people may preference "1" for the the non-winning candidates, once preferences are distributed we have 50%+1 (often more) of voters choosing the winning candidate in each seat over all others.

On your example, with our current system, is an all-Liberal Parliament even a possibility? It would depend on how the 55% who voted for "others" chose their preferences. And with such low results for Liberal, Labor and Green I'm guessing you are expecting a very large number of minor candidates? Also, in the Federal Election there were plenty of seats decided on preferences and some of them had the leading candidate lose out in the end: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseSeatsDecidedOnPrefs-15508-NAT.htm

You said "we are all prevented from voting for people we might actually support by this system as they are confined to local electorates that might have different priorities." - do you want multi-member electorates like in Tasmania/ACT? If you don't like the local candidates you could either run in an election or organise something.

Found this, though about 20 years old...I guess by not voting, as you say, it means you are pretty satisfied: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970156-1,00.html
I would agree but for the interest groups that wrest favours from politicians...but I guess then everyone is happy.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 1:22:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for all the comments. I won't discuss optional preferential, as that was not my main topic, and I gave my viewpoint on that in the essay. And, yes, I too would like to bring back bonfire night, as we called it in my part of the world.

My aim was to propose a small improvement that might have some slight effect. The problem with bigger proposals is that the party stranglehold will simply strangle them at birth.

So my suggestion is to some degree just symbolic. But it could have some effect in letting us know how many voters are looking for something different from the current political menu. In another recent essay on OLO, Ian Marsh suggests that many voters are in this category. Quote:

"The community is now much more differentiated and pluralised. Australians exhibit a much wider spectrum of attachments and attitudes. Relatively small numbers of voters remain rusted on loyalists of the major parties. For their part, party organisations have virtually collapsed. They play almost no role in policy development or in activist mobilisation. Membership is insignificant. Power has flowed from the organisation and the members to party leaders. Party organisations have a minimal role in linking the community to politics."

NOTA might free up the ballot, so that this mismatch between free-thinking voters and dinosaur parties becomes more clearly visible in the voting figures. At present people are voting under duress.

The criticisms of the NOTA proposal may be taking a too short-sighted view. For example, Otokonoko says: "If an MP can get in despite being the second most popular option (the most popular being NOTA), then what does s/he care about the NOTA vote?" True enough. But come the next election, parties and candidates will be trying to win the vote of those who voted NOTA last time. That's where a difference might be made. They will know that they ran the wrong campaign last time.

Better still, new parties and candidates may see an opportunity, on the assumption that they can capture the NOTA numbers.
Posted by Alan Tapper, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 7:04:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag- again, no 'leadership' required or warranted, the best chance of improving the chances of a more informed vote would be to let people who clearly don't care stay home. Otherwise, nobody else deserves any say in who votes or not, and how.

Jorge- you again, keep missing the points.

1- It doesn't matter why people don't want to vote, my point is we are NOT doing our country any favors by making them attend the polling booth- we are in fact increasing the ratio of apathy and donkey votes at the expense of anyone who actually WOULD have wanted to make a serious vote.
And seeing as Germany abolished Jury Duty without a hitch, and seeing that Australia judges reserves immense amount of power to abort a case or override the jury at his own discretion, I do in fact consider Jury duty to be a complete wank.
Another unreasonable violation of people's rights for the purpose of playing pretend symbolism.
Which is the problem- too many people believe symbolism actually makes a difference in practice- it doesnt- and we're paying for it.

2- I am FOR voter preferencing, so long as I am allowed to stop preferencing when I run out of parties I would actually want to vote for. If some reds-under-the-bed fruitloop doesn't like it because he's convinced the next most popular parties are marxists going to implement a nazi state without forcing me to vote for a party he likes instead, tough- my rights shouldn't be held down low enough to give peace of mind to a complete nutjob.

And I would indeed endorse a different electoral structure, though I have already expressed these many times elsewhere.

And Alan- most of the other parties WOULD already be targeting as many people as possible.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 21 October 2010 9:44:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I entirely agree that voters should be able to make a NOTA vote. The only change I would make to the proposal is that the NOTA vote should have the capacity to change an election result. I would like to add the following provisions: first, 'NOTA' should be treated as being a name for a party so that a NOTA vote is regarded as being equivalent to a vote for a party, and it becomes possible to speak of 'the NOTA winning'; second, if the NOTA wins the election then another election must be held within a certain time, say three months, and that this procedure be carried on until the NOTA loses, if need be, indefinitely. I believe that these provisions would *make* the main parties tailor their policies to an interested electorate, and in so doing would *really* make them answerable to the people. Unfortunately however, I think that it would be impossible to introduce a NOTA vote of any kind, since it would require that politicians introduce it, and introducing it is not in their interests. The last thing politicians as a collective want is to be *genuinely* answerable to the collective that they nominally represent.
Posted by Wallaby, Friday, 22 October 2010 8:19:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I didn't vote in the last election. I made that a conscious decision on the basis that there was no "least worse" choice and that a protest vote given to an independent or greens was simply going to be assigned eventually to one of the majors.

If a NOTA had been available, I'd have very definitely taken the option.

The suggestions to make NOTA a valid and influential vote are very compelling from where I sit. The major parties are both slaves to sectional interests and to their own drive to obtain power - which, of course, is their sole reason for existence. None of the parties, whether the majors or the bit players, exist for any reason other than to allow parliamentary members to easily form a Government with no need for negotiation on the form or policies of such a government, since these things are largely decided by non-parliamentary members and staffers of the party.

The only opportunity we, as voters, have to influence the form and policies of our governments is at elections. That power is diluted still further because the parties endure between elections, and so do the non-parliamentary members and staffers, meaning that a "protest vote" is fairly meaningless in the context of the Party, although it may be quite personally damaging to individual candidates.

NOTA implies "a pox on both your houses" and it demands meaningful change. MAke it count, as others have said. Make the Parties come back to the voters until they can provide a vision that the voters will accept. They won't listen otherwise.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 22 October 2010 8:35:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wallaby, that might actually work.

For the best result however, there is CIR- that way there is zero chance they will try- or be capable of, screwing us between elections on issues, and any issue they don't want to touch (or are benefitting from personally) will be yanked out of their hands and voted on by the rest of us.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 22 October 2010 9:10:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A major flaw exists in providing a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

One of the possible outcomes under such a system is that the 'none of the above' choice may secure an absolute majority of votes in a Division at an election. It has already been contended that in such an event the electors in the Division concerned would go unrepresented in the Parliament. It is at this point that it becomes clear that the proposal will run foul of the Constitution.

An express provision of the Constitution with respect to voting, albeit at a referendum, is that an outcome will be determined in accordance with the wishes of a majority of the electors voting. It is very clear that the decision reached by that majority of those voting will in no way be invalidated by the fact that an absolute majority of enrolled electors may have failed to vote. (Indeed, it may well be argued from this that it is a neccessary implication of the Constitution that there should be no compulsion to vote, but that is a separate issue.)

Another express provision of the Constitution, that of Section 24, is that a House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth. 'Shall', not 'may'. 'Members', not notional non-members or 'NOTAs'. A member for each and every Division.

Clearly, any introduction of a 'none of the above' option to the ballot paper would require passage at referendum of quite complex and far reaching alterations to the Constitution to even become a possibility.

Wallaby, posting on Friday, 22 October 2010 at 8:19:21 AM, seems to drive the final nail into the coffin of the NOTA proposal in any case when he says:

"Unfortunately however, I think that it would be
impossible to introduce a NOTA vote of any kind,
since it would require that politicians introduce it,
and introducing it is not in their interests."

It would be politicians that would have to pass a referendum Bill sending any such proposal to the people for approval.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 9:10:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy