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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
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. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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