Three reforms that would be more effective than adding a ‘None of the above’ option to ballot papers
Should voters be allowed to select ‘None of the above’ at elections, as proposed recently on Democratic Audit? In this post, Richard Berry argues that this would represent only a superficial change to the electoral process. He suggests that changing the electoral system, introducing primaries and providing better support for candidates would be more effective ways of achieving the aims of the NOTA campaign.
Should voters be able to formally reject all candidates standing for election? Image: Jason Trommetter CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
India introduced a ‘None of the above’ (NOTA) option at its general election last year, the biggest democratic election ever held. This allowed voters to reject all of the candidates standing in their constituency; ultimately, 1.1% of Indian voters chose this option.
Rohin Vadera proposed recently on Democratic Audit that the UK should do the same, arguing that putting a NOTA option on ballot papers is,“the only measurable way to bring consent into the UK electoral process.” In the post Vadera envisages formalised consequences of a NOTA vote: if this proves the most popular option at an election, the next highest-placed candidate would assume office for 6-12 months until a new election is held. No such mechanism exists in India, which means the NOTA has little more than symbolic value.
The proposal seems an appealing one. There is clear evidence that a large number of people feel entirely disaffected from the democratic process, and it seems only right that this sentiment is given an outlet at election time. Of course, people can already spoil their ballot papers or stay at home, but these are imprecise methods and fail to record exactly what preferences voters are expressing.
The problem with introducing a NOTA option, however, is that the change it brings about will be superficial. There is nothing wrong with allowing voters to register their dissatisfaction, but in itself this will do nothing to address the fundamental challenges facing British democracy.
NOTA will not increase turnout. Some people will select this option, including those who travel to the polling station specifically to do so. But the notion that significant numbers of voters refuse to participate at the moment because they lack a formal mechanism for registering discontent is far-fetched. Political disaffection has many causes, most of them much more deeply-entrenched than proponents of NOTA would have us believe.
We need only look at differential rates of turnout by social class. At the 2010 General Election, the gap in turnout between voters in the highest income group and those in the lowest was 23 percentage points. NOTA campaigners might point out that the poorest members of our society are not well represented by the candidates that tend to stand for election – and therefore NOTA would potentially give them a voice – and that is true. But attending a polling station to vote for ‘none of the above’ is in almost every respect the very same activity as attending a polling station to vote for a party. NOTA may seem like an act of rebellion, but simply being in a position to choose it requires a level of political engagement that is unthinkable for millions of citizens.
There is a range of other political reforms that have the potential to achieve some of the aims of the NOTA campaign. In this post I will discuss three: changing the electoral system, introducing primary elections, and improving support for candidates. None of these can fully address the deeply-entrenched disaffection borne out of inequality, but each would be much more effective than NOTA in changing the dynamic of elections.
Electoral reform
Rohin Vadera stated in his post that, “If the majority of voters choose [NOTA] then that electorate as a whole (e.g. MP constituency) has withheld its consent and the election must be re-run.” But under Britain’s First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system that would not necessarily be the case. Only a plurality of voters would need to choose NOTA, meaning that elections can be voided on the wishes of perhaps just a third of voters. In this sense, NOTA would do nothing to address the current situation where tens of millions of votes are ‘wasted’ and not reflected in electoral outcomes.
First Past The Post – used for the House of Commons and most local authorities – provides for MPs to be elected if they win the highest number of votes in their constituency. Successful candidates do not need the support of the majority of their constituents, and most do not have it even in those seats considered ‘safe’. Scaled up, this also allows parties to win parliamentary majorities with much less than 50% of the public vote.
Other electoral systems work in different ways. Systems like the Alternative Vote and Supplementary Vote allow votes for multiple candidates in order of preference; while not guaranteeing that candidates must win a majority, they would help ensure that MPs cannot win without the endorsement of a much greater proportion of their electorate. Other systems like the Single Transferable Vote or List systems aim for proportionality in the overall result. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, but most alternatives would change the electoral dynamic in a meaningful way and give the individual voter more power than under FPTP.
Primary elections
Primary elections are a phenomenon we associate chiefly with the United States, but they are a feature of the electoral process in many parts of the world, including Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe. Primaries essentially open up the candidate selection process – to a greater or lesser extent – so that ordinary voters can take part in choosing the candidate that a party is going to nominate for an upcoming election.
Both Labour and the Conservatives have experimented with primary elections, and pledged to continue doing so. This is to be encouraged. Primaries, if run in a fair and open manner, can widen the pool of candidates putting themselves forward for election and shift power from party elites to the public in choosing which of them succeeds. In doing so, this reform would significantly weaken the appeal of NOTA.
Support for candidates
We tend to make life hard for election candidates in the UK. For parliamentary elections candidates are required to collect 10 signatures from local electors and to pay a deposit of £500, which is lost if the candidate fails to get 5% of the vote. Candidates without significant financial and organisational backing may therefore be discouraged from standing. This does not just affect independent candidates but parties, too: for instance, UKIP lost £229,000 and the Green Party £163,500 in election deposits at the 2010 General Election. Abolishing deposits would reduce barriers to standing for election, helping to increase the choices available to voters.
Publicity for candidates is also poor. Parliamentary candidates are given one free mailout to voters during the campaign, but the same privilege is not afforded to candidates at most other types of election. Arguably, however, even this form of support is insufficient, in an age where political communication is moving online. As I have argued elsewhere, pre-election information aimed at voters falls short of what is required. There are very few places a voter can go to find comprehensive information about all of the candidates standing for election in their constituency or ward. In these circumstances it is no surprise some people reach for NOTA as a solution, but the better response is to improve the quality of information available.
In conclusion, it is clear that elections in the UK can be improved. Voters should have more information, more choice and more influence over the outcomes. If changes to deliver these objectives are introduced, we can also expect the representativeness and responsiveness of our elected politicians to increase. Adding a ‘none of the above’ option to ballot papers may address a narrow theoretical concern about the provision of voter consent, but there are much more effective and practical ways to achieve meaningful change.
—
Note: this post represents the views of the author, and not those of Democratic Audit or the LSE. Please read our comments policy before posting.
—
Richard Berry is a Research Associate at Democratic Audit and the LSE Public Policy Group. He is a scrutiny manager for the London Assembly and also runs the new Health Election Data website. View his research at richardjberry.com or find him on Twitter @richard3berry.
Similar Posts
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Democratic Audit's core funding is provided by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Additional funding is provided by the London School of Economics.
[…] of a ‘None of the Above’ option on the ballot paper, with over 70% of respondents in favour. A controversial measure, it would allow a process of ‘active abstention’, and enable voters engaged with political […]
[…] been some discussion on the Democratic Audit website about NOTA. Mr Berry recently wrote about election reform, claiming that PR, election primaries, and a lower financial burden on candidates would be better […]
My response to Richard berry’s article:
“Why ‘None of the Above’ is the starting point for electoral reform and should be the priority of all political and electoral reformers at this time”
https://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=10733
[…] demands that a ‘None of the Above’ option be added to ballot papers for UK elections” with an article which suggested alternative reforms to UK voting arrangements. Here, the founder of NOTA UK, Jamie […]
Another awkward issue about elections needs to be considered if greater participation is wanted, and you touch upon it at the end of your piece. It is to do with the ability to put your message across as a candidate.
As a former candidate for London Mayor, I was staggered to be told by the BBC (state radio and tv) that I and many other candidates would be excluded from all tv coverage of the election during the campaign proper as we were in the ‘wrong class’. And then told by another arm of the state (the election organisers) that I was banned from mailing all my potential constituents on pain of a possible criminal conviction (spending rules), and that any participation in the grim and turgid1950s-style election booklet would be censored by the state. This became a bigger issue in a subsequent London Mayor election when two candidates favoured by the Guardian and Independent were also denied access, and those newspapers expressed their indignation on a daily basis.
I speak about this to audiences in the US and Canada and when I show them the BBC and election rules and how the state attempts to suppress diversity in campaigning, they are amazed.
Really, if candidates in serious elections are to be barred from any meaningful access to tv, then banned from tv advertising to counter the restrictions, and then banned from writing to their constituents in a pincer movement by the state, are we surprised that people lose interest? Diversity and choice are now hardwired into most people – the idea that they have to choose from tired old alternatives saying the same old things and appearing to be populated by the same breed seems like the 1950s style of choice which went out of fashion in, er, the 1950s.
Good to see some lively debate going on in the comments section of this article. Nothing to add, NOTA supporters seem to have it all covered. Just a note to say that my article in response to this one will be published on Democracy Audit, presumably tomorrow. Those interested can check out our website for more on the campaign for NOTA: https://www.notauk.org
[…] post for Democratic Audit (22 January 2015), considering the possible benefits of adding a ‘None of the above’ […]
A spirited debate going on below the line on the merits of adding a ‘None of the Above’ option to ballot papers here https://t.co/vKPYFuXW1t
First of all for misspelling Richard Berry’s name in my first comment.
It should be considered that if NOTA is effective it will not be used in large numbers, in fact thats the end point its presence is supposed to have, to reduce discontent.
In terms of immediate impact Its presence on the ballot makes all forms of negative campaigning of no tactical advantage for any party or candidate, as this sort of campaigning will just cause people to choose NOTA.
Secondly its very presence on the ballot must be taken into consideration by those in power. They will be very wary of doing things that will annoy and anger people in large numbers. Would the UK have gotten involved in the second Gulf war if NOTA was an option at the time? Or consider the responses to the banking crisis by the political class, would they make the same responses if they know NOTA is an option for voters?
Berry has not fully considered the very powerful but perhaps sometimes subtle pressure that the mere presence of an effective NOTA option will engender on all political calculations by those in power.
Hello again Rohin. I replied to your earlier comment below. I will just reiterate one point I made there – you have no evidence. Your assertions are very powerful but I’m not seeing any realistic description of the mechanism between NOTA and political/policy change, let alone any evidence of it working in practice.
I accept your clarification that NOTA does not necessarily need to be used in large numbers to have an effect. It could well exert some subtle pressure just by being there. But I think you need to re-examine your thinking on this topic if you’re even entertaining the idea that NOTA would have prevented UK involvement in Iraq or changed parties’ approach to the banking crisis. I genuinely believe that large-scale political reform would make a difference to the decisions our government make, but to single out NOTA as being instrumental on its own is just not realistic.
What excites me about the form of NOTA being advocated is the delay in the re-run of up to a year and the continuance of political stability with the second placed candidate taking office temporarily. If it merely led to a re-run within a few months and the seat remaining empty, its use would be limited. What makes this NOTA powerful is that ensures voters can use it with confidence, and there would be ample time and no excuses not to respnd to the message delivered by the electorate.
As long it can, at the very least, deliver a reliable measure of discontent it can be catalyst for a great number of equally important reforms.
It’s true that the reforms proposed would be more effective than NOTA alone in improving voter representation, and in improving the quality of representative offered. But Mr. Berry is missing the point if he thinks that NOTA is being pushed as a cure-all to the exclusion of these or any other options. It is compatible with all of them; there is no reason why we should not call for all four or even more.
Part of his confusion may be due to the fact that the main groups (that I’m aware of) calling for NOTA do so as a single issue, without taking a position on other potential reforms. I can’t speak for all of them, but for the group I’m most connected to that’s a conscious decision. Our members have other interests in the field of reform, some of them wildly divergent, but this particular group is specifically for NOTA-related activities. It’s common ground for a common cause, that allows us to set aside our disagreements in favour of our shared interest.
This is a fair point and one I agree with in part. NOTA is perfectly compatible with other reforms and there is no reason not to consider alongside other reforms. In the limited time we have on earth, however, I think we’re better focusing on reforms with greater potential for impact.
You are completely wrong that NOTA is not being pushed as a cure-all. Just read the stuff that NOTA campaigners say about it. I have never seen such a mismatch between rhetoric and reality.
You’re right that NOTA is pushed as a cure-all by some (generally the most vocal), but in no case is that to the actual detriment of other reforms. These people simply have such high hopes for NOTA relative to other reforms that they don’t think the others worth the effort at this point – similar to your own reasons for dismissing NOTA, only with the positions reversed. This is also often a comment more on the likelihood of a reform actually occurring than on the effect it is expected to have, as NOTA is generally seen as an ‘easy sell’ compared to more radical changes. I agree that some of its proponents massively overstate their case, but that does not mean that there is not a case to be had.
Evidently we disagree over where the balance should be struck between potential impact and the likelihood of actually gaining that impact. I think it better to gain the small victories where possible even if they’re not as dramatic, securing actual improvements as well as hopefully making the concept of change less scary in time for the bigger ones to follow. You’d rather blitz straight for the big prizes, in hopes that the smaller details can be mopped up later if required. Both strategies have their merits, and the best balance depends on the situation – and odds are neither of us is absolutely right!. Maybe it’s just a matter of age, and what timescale we consider acceptable for a major campaign.
Thanks for replying Alex. And thanks for saying for my strategy has its merits, but unfortunately you’ve completely mis-stated my strategy, to the extent I have one.
I am 100% behind the idea of pursuing achievable, piecemeal reforms. But it is not the case that electoral reform, primaries and candidate support are the ‘big prizes’ compared to the more achievable reform of NOTA.
For instance, electoral reform is a manifesto commitment of several major parties, was recommended by a Royal Commission, has been introduced widely already across UK elections except Westminster, and is looking ever more likely as a response to another hung parliament. It is significantly closer to being reality than NOTA (as well as being far more effective).
Similarly, primaries are being introduced by major parties, and are used across the world. Abolishing deposits seems less likely, but with every passing year the deposit becomes less of an obstacle due to inflation. Pre-election information is constantly being improved by local authorities and others (albeit slowly).
The problem with NOTA is not that it’s too small a change. It is that it won’t have any real-world impact, in my humble opinion, while more impactful reforms are already on the horizon.
Yes clearly electoral reform will have a massive impact, but will that impact be positive or negative? Where is your evidence? Whats your hypotheses? How are you testing your hypotheses?
Its important to be skeptical of the hype, but don’t stray into cynicism.
“NOTA will not increase turnout. Some people will select this option, including those who travel to the polling station specifically to do so. But the notion that significant numbers of voters refuse to participate at the moment because they lack a formal mechanism for registering discontent is far-fetched. Political disaffection has many causes, most of them much more deeply-entrenched than proponents of NOTA would have us believe.”
I don’t agree with that. First of all I don’t see NOTA differentiating over the reasoning of voters for voting NOTA – and that’s because It doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that if you don’t feel that any of your constituency’s candidates are worth your vote, and you’d rather none of them ‘got in’, then you have that option and it could make a difference. Currently your only option is to not vote. Abstain.
How many voters are protest voters, but protesting via ‘minor’ parties?
This option could make a substantial difference in UK politics right now in particular. The larger parties are losing support and smaller parties are growing, but is that because they are regarded as a better option or a protest against who people really want to vote for, but feel let down by them? Or is it because voters want to vote for something rather than nothing and would rather vote for the least worst option than not vote?
What if your constituency happens to have a really bad batch of candidates and/or you don’t even want to vote for your own party’s candidate? If your party has the greatest support, but a candidate you don’t want, you could reject that candidate and everyone else, and force a re-run with different candidates.
Candidates who are rejected by a NOTA vote should be barred from standing again in that constituency for a period – which at the very least should prevent them from standing again in a ‘replay’.
Thanks Radio. Yes it would be nice for voters to have the option to say ‘none of the above’. As I’ve said elsewhere there may be certain circumstance when this gets used. But until NOTA campaigners present any evidence to the contrary (not a shred so far), I will continue to believe that most disaffected voters will continue to abstain even if they have the NOTA option available.
Some NOTA campaigners seem happy with that scenario – as long as the option is there, that is all that matters. I refuse to accept that. I want people to positively engage in democracy.
How can we present evidence when you dismiss the evidence from the only electoral system in the world (as far as I know) that uses a form of binding NOTA?
Catch 22.
I would like to address a few of the points put forward by Richard Barry. Before that I would like to say that I have no objection to the reforms he puts forward.
First of all NOTA can only trigger a re-run if a majority of voters choose this option. It is fundamental to the reform; if it achieves a mere plurality it cannot trigger a re-run. If a voter chooses any of the candidates he is implicitly consenting for the winner of the election to represent him, even if he has not voted for the eventual winner. So if the majority chooses any of the candidates, then the majority have given their consent to be represented by the winner and NOTA cannot trigger a re-run. The point of the reform is to make discontent simple to express and measurable in a way that retains the integrity of the system as a whole. In a NOTA system, there no such thing as a ‘safe seat’ with only a plurality of voters choosing the eventual winner. In those seats a voter can choose NOTA instead of a candidate that will in reality lose in our current model. This means that even in so called ‘safe seats’ candidates will require the consent of the majority of voters, this is a far reaching change that strikes straight into the undemocratic heart of the current established parties. It also negates the reasons for voters having to choose extremist ‘protest’ parties.
NOTA can be used for people who traditionally choose one of the established parties and have no intention of switching to a new one; they can use NOTA when they think that their party has put forward an unsuitable candidate or if they disapprove strongly of some of the policies put forward by their party of choice. It takes power away from political parties and puts it into the hands of voters.
Secondly, whether or not NOTA is used extensively or not cannot be gauged in reference to India’s reform. Here the option is only one of abstention; it represents the electronic equivalent of spoiling the ballot in secret. It serves merely as a symbolic adjunct, not a fundamental prerequisite.
A valid comparison can actually be found in Russia of all places.
Russia has an interesting history with NOTA. It had a type of binding NOTA option from 2001 to 2006, and then legislators scrapped it as re-running elections was ‘too expensive’. The language barrier does not permit in-depth research, but that does signify that the option was being used. A relatively well reported instance of a NOTA win was in the city of Ulyanovsk in which NOTA ‘won’ twice for the parliamentary seat, and increased turnout.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/world/ulyanovsk-journal-only-in-russia-none-of-the-above-is-on-ballot-and-wins.html)
Recently the possibility of a binding NOTA option is to be re-introduced for municipal and regional elections in a bill drafted in 2013. In an opinion poll by the VTSIOM agency in 2013: 43% of Russians supported the move, 21% opposed it and 32% said they were indifferent to such changes.
(https://rt.com/politics/russia-voting-option-duma-518/)
By the way Putin is vehemently opposed to NOTA.
The only known country with a binding NOTA shows that it is widely supported, by 2 to 1, by people who expressed an opinion. This would hardly be the case if people had no intention of using it.
I find it rather ambiguous that Barry contends that millions voters won’t be bothered to choose NOTA, which is a simple tick in a box, backed up by a solid logistical plan to handle re-runs, but feels that by making it easier to stand as a candidate will make all the difference. It’s a fairly contradictory attitude.
At its heart I believe that there is a certain amount of disdain for the ‘mere’ act of voting in political circles. If we want people to participate in the political process should we not make the fundamental building block of the democratic system – the vote- as powerful as possible? If people cannot express themselves at the ballot doesn’t this send the message that their opinions are not important? Politics is effectively a closed shop, and scrapping the deposit will not change that, like it or not established parties have a huge amount of expertise and experience in government, and this more than anything else is a barrier for entry, this expertise can be harnessed to the benefit of voters, if they are given a chance to control their parties effectively.
NOTA acts as an essential form of – control over and feedback to – our elected representatives and ensures that they must get our consent. The giving and withholding of consent is the power of a sovereign and nothing that can be brushed aside.
Let voters have an opportunity with an effective NOTA, put power in their hands, give them a chance to show their mettle.
Thanks for the considered response Rohin, I appreciate being able to take part in a good-natured debate. In this reply I am just going to address some of the points you make that I don’t think stack up.
First of all, I accept your clarification that you are proposing NOTA only has an effect if a majority of voters choose it, rather than a plurality – that is welcome.
Secondly, you have badly misquoted me in relation to India. In my post I said absolutely nothing about what the Indian experience tells us about the likely popularity of NOTA in the UK. I would appreciate an apology and correction on this point.
There is no reason to think that NOTA will end the phenomenon of ‘safe seats’. A safe seat is so described because we expect a large enough voters in that seat to vote in a certain way, based on past experience. A seat only becomes unsafe when there is a viable threat against the incumbent party, and there is no evidence whatsoever that NOTA will be a viable threat across every seat in the country. That is just wishful thinking.
I don’t see the value of using Russia as a comparator. It’s not a democracy. I’m not surprised that, given the opportunity, voters there use the NOTA option. But for all its flaws, the UK is not Russia. UK voters have vastly more choice and influence on election outcomes already. The key is to expand that choice and influence.
I don’t think “making it easier to stand as a candidate will make all the difference” – another misquote. As you know that is just one of several reforms I suggested, and I think it can have a small, positive effect.
You haven’t presented any evidence at all to suggest that disaffected voters will use the NOTA option in significant numbers, so I’m taken aback by your utter certainty that this will happen. Personally I am convinced that it won’t. I can’t prove a negative, but at least I’m willing to be honest about the lack of evidence. NOTA campaigners would be more convincing if they were a little more circumspect.
I’ll be blunt, I don’t like the idea of NOTA. I think it could be useful in specific circumstances, like booting out corrupt MPs that a party has re-selected. But I feel this campaign is feeding an anti-politics sentiment that is only putting people off getting involved. I’m not ‘against’ it – if NOTA was already on the ballot I wouldn’t be suggesting we take it off. But when I consider the long list of problems facing British democracy and the very limited effect I believe NOTA will have, I can’t see why anybody thinks it is worth campaigning for when there is so much else to be done.
Hi Richard
I welcome the debate too. There is so much to say, but I will try to keep it as short, if I can!
First of all, I don’t think any apology is necessary regarding India. You led with it in your article, and you strongly asserted that NOTA would not be widely used. While you did not explicitly use its low uptake in India as a basis for your assertion, I am aware, as you are, that readers can and will make that inference and I have to re-but you on that point. In fact I think you should aplogise to me for inserting a completely irrelevant use of NOTA while re-butting my article. It is there to provide a way for voters to abstain in secret electronically, not reject.
I understand that you and others think that I am overstating the case for NOTA, but I disagree with this assessment; I am pointing out the best case scenario if it is fully utilized. There is a time and place to under promise and over deliver, but when advocating a reform like NOTA I think that is even less useful than the danger of over-hyping it.
You state boldly several times I don’t provide a shred of evidence, that’s clearly nonsense. There is only one country in the world that uses a badly implemented NOTA in its elections and that is Russia, I provided evidence that has been used and its re-instatement would be popular with voters. I’m sorry but that is valid evidence, your prejudice blinds you to its validity.
The point of NOTA is to be a reliable measure of discontent, are you really asserting that UK voters are largely satisfied with UK election results. Honestly I am flabbergasted that you would make this assertion. Where’s your evidence? I really think its time for a reality check for you.
The current approval rating of the UK leadership is a measly 29%.
https://www.euractiv.com/eu-elections-2014/eu-leadership-approval-tanks-bai-news-532677
Contrast that with Putin’s approval rating which recently stood at 85%, if that figure can be believed.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11257362/Seven-reasons-to-explain-Vladimir-Putins-popularity-cult.html
You are here there and everywhere with your reasons why you think NOTA would not be taken up. In your article you asserted that ‘simply being in a position to choose it (NOTA) requires a level of political engagement that is unthinkable for millions of citizens’. And now you say that people too apathetic to tick a box, now you say that they wouldn’t as there would be no need to do so. It demonstrates again just prejudice on your part.
There is evidence of significant interest in NOTA from other sources as well. In a blog on the Electoral Reform Society website asking whether people would back NOTA there were 210 comments.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/would-you-back-none-of-the-above
Other blogs reach no more than single digits, if any, in the number of comments.
If you look at the House of Commons report on Voter Engagement (2014) on page 75 you will see that in a 38 degrees survey on the question of What would make you more likely to voter in 2015 election 18,000 of the 84,000 respondents chose the inclusion of NOTA on the ballot.
You are simply blind to the level of interest in the option.
A survey of non-voters highlighted in the in the same report on page 18
27% said they didn’t believe their vote would make a difference
25% said they thought the parties/candidates were all the same
19%said they were not interested in politics.
18% said they did not have enough information/knowledge to choose
Clearly your views are not based on a shred of evidence whatsoever, but my views have some at least.
Do you really contend that scrapping the deposits for candidates is a less superficial change than giving them the ability to withhold consent? Come on now, be real.
On your contention that primaries will help anything.; where is your evidence? The USA uses them and recent poll 67% of people rated the performance of congress as poor. And if you really think that people can’t be bothered to engage, then why would adding another layer of election help? You are contradicting yourself. (You come perilously close to saying that large sections of the UK public is not ready for democracy)
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance
Their voter turnout is even lower than the UK, hovering at 50%.
Doesn’t the fact that the UK establishment parties are ready to use primaries and are vehemently opposed to NOTA tell you something? Do turkeys vote for Chistmas?
There is so much more I could say about your assertions, but I think I will leave there. I appreciate your engagement Richard. This topic deserves far more attention than it gets.
I admire your enthusiasm Rohin but you really can’t use evidence this way if you want to make a strong case.
You can’t just cherry pick any stat you want relating to political disaffection and then jump to a positive conclusion about NOTA. Where are your rival hypotheses? Where is your consideration of source quality? Where are all the steps in between the assertions you link together?
I’m not saying you need a PhD in political science in order to pass comment – fortunately, because I don’t have one – but last time I checked this was a place for well-informed debate, not rants punctuated by percent signs.
Re India. You’ve clearly drawn an inference from me mentioning India in my post. I did not make that inference, and I did not want or expect any reader to think I did. It was simply a way of introducing my post by referring to recent political events. I explicitly mentioned the weakness in the India model. I think you can see from my post and subsequent comments that I state my arguments plainly and openly. When you calm down after this wave of publicity, you should re-read what we have both written and then apologise.
First you dismiss the evidence from the only country in the world that used a form of binding NOTA as irrelevant, and assert everywhere in the comments I have not shown a scrap of evidence. Now when I put more evidence forward you characterise my contribution as a a rant with cherry picked evidence. Wow Richard just wow.
My source was a House of Commons parliamentary report from 2014. My other sources were MORI and Ramussen polls, as far as I know these are quality sources.
What are the links you want to see?
You waver between saying that the disaffected are too apathetic to choose NOTA (Wait, what?) based on a newspaper article, which by the way in no way shows that NOTA would not be a valuable tool to engage voters, and subsequently change your stance to there is not enough disaffection with the system to make the inclusion of NOTA worthwhile and voters have plenty of choice and influence on outcomes already and your solution to that lack of a problem is to provide more choice (Eh what?)
My comments may not be Phd material, but your comments are just bizarre.
I demonstrate widespread dissaffection and show a poll with voters giving their reasons for not voting, in direct repsonse to your assertion we have not given the causes for not voting enough consideration. NOTA’s purpose is to give that disaffaction a voice. I can’t prove the disaffected will use it, as it will take putting NOTA on the ballot to do so. But I cant get NOTA on the ballot according to you until I have proved it. Is this the best you got?
I don’t know whether to be insulted that you choose scrapping the deposit and increasing information to voters in some vague unspecified way as less superficial than giving voters the ability to withhold their consent, or be embarrassed for you to put forward so utterly lame. If you think scrapping the deposits and handing out the chance for free publicity will not have an ‘anti-politics’ effect you are in for a surprise should your little proposal see the light of day.
Here’s a cherry picked study you might find interesting. A 2013 Princeton study found that the USA operates as an oligarchy. (or more specifically Economic Elite Domination)
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
In my original article I demonstrated quite logically without NOTA our electoral process ensures sovereign power never resides with the electorate but actually resides only in parliament or equivalent to be exercised by those who make it there. The house of congress in the USA is very similar to our House of Commons, except that it uses your idea of using primaries to select candidates.
Is it not tantalising to consider that a system that is an oligarchy in theory and also functions as one in reality is more than a coincidence?
Here’s a Phd topic for you.
Hi Richard
It’s clear we are not going anywhere. You don’t like NOTA and I find you are shockingly naive regarding the potential pitfalls to the reforms you would like to see.
I think a very positive way to conclude is if you could outline the kind of evidence you would think would provide good case for the inclusion of a NOTA option on the ballot. If you can do so I would appreciate greatly, as it is something we can work on collecting.
We may disagree on the methods, but at the end of the day our goals are the same. Your input would be of great value.
Campaigners for ‘none of the above’ are neglecting the deeply-entrenched causes of political disaffection https://t.co/Bjj7LYuiES
RT @richard3berry: Adding ‘none of the above’ option to ballot papers would deliver only superficial change to the dynamic of elections htt…
My post for @DemocraticAudit on why electoral reform, primaries and better candidate support are better than ‘NOTA’ https://t.co/OlWBgMOInO
3 reforms that would be more effective than adding a ‘None of the above’ option to ballot papers by @richard3berry UK https://t.co/o3K36NZmoL
3 reforms that would be more effective than a ‘None of the above’ option on ballots https://t.co/9nlkq38GG1 @richard3berry @democraticaudit
2010 General Election: Gap in turnout between voters in highest income group & lowest was 23%. What to do? https://t.co/jhkSsSa97r
Implementing ‘none of the above’ won’t change election dynamics argues @democraticaudit https://t.co/BrrCXfokVo
Three reforms that would be more effective than adding a ‘None of the above’ option to ballot papers https://t.co/Uv6znA1oGb
Three reforms that would be more effective than adding a ‘None of the above’ option to ballot papers https://t.co/IVwpLZese0