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.

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.

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.