None of the Above

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
Ok, so hopefully we've all had this issue come up in our NS nation but basically... Added on or maybe even replacing the ability to vote for abstaination, would be an option for None of the Above. If 15% of ALL ballots cast are for that option for that particular Ministry then all candidates would be dumped and new candidates can add their names.

Why choose between the lesser evil and still end up with an evil government? How is that representative of the people's will?

It would also be effective for those who feel uncomfortable with candidates who run unopposed in elections (like me). This way, there simply would be no easy passes to a cabinet position!
 
You're making my job difficult, you know that? :P

The problem here is when elections get held up for weeks because you keep getting a small group voting "None of the Above" - it's the same as what supposedly happens in your NS nation. The elections for this term took long enough, with a re-vote needed for PM and MoEA, and then a MoCE needing appointment. Everything won't be completely "finished" until the 8th, more than a month after elections are usually scheduled to end.

If we add something like this, we'll never get this finished up. The cabinet will finally be filled and it'll be time for elections again.

No, no, no.
 
we didn't need a re-vote! It was a run-off, very common in some countries and very pure in its democratic goals.

Obviously time constraints and even if we have a large enough pool of talent comes into play, but what's this in the name of democracy?!

Also, I'm sure after one None of the Above option is fullfilled the voters would be more than happy to not repeat such an election. Didn't we already have people complain of voter fatigue? They won't be the ones voting for None of the Above...

If the concern is about this being overused then raising the bar will help, how would a 25% of ballots needed to trigger another election sound?
 
mr_sniffles:
we didn't need a re-vote! It was a run-off, very common in some countries and very pure in its democratic goals.

Obviously time constraints and even if we have a large enough pool of talent comes into play, but what's this in the name of democracy?!

Also, I'm sure after one None of the Above option is fullfilled the voters would be more than happy to not repeat such an election. Didn't we already have people complain of voter fatigue? They won't be the ones voting for None of the Above...

If the concern is about this being overused then raising the bar will help, how would a 25% of ballots needed to trigger another election sound?
Click to expand...
If no one else chose to run within the 7 day period they had to announce their candidacy, how can we expect others to decide to run after? I agree with Hersfold, it would make the election process way too long. Terms are only 3 months. We don't need to add on more time for the already 14+ days of elections.
 
None of the above would be feasable if the voting period were shortened. 90% of the votes in the last election were in within 4 days.

I otherwise have to agree with Hersfold. Because of the runoff I sat for almost two weeks waiting for the right to be anything.
 
mr_sniffles:
we didn't need a re-vote! It was a run-off, very common in some countries and very pure in its democratic goals.

Obviously time constraints and even if we have a large enough pool of talent comes into play, but what's this in the name of democracy?!

Also, I'm sure after one None of the Above option is fullfilled the voters would be more than happy to not repeat such an election. Didn't we already have people complain of voter fatigue? They won't be the ones voting for None of the Above...

If the concern is about this being overused then raising the bar will help, how would a 25% of ballots needed to trigger another election sound?
Click to expand...
I meant run-off. Basically the same thing. Not really, but whatever.

It's still well open to abuse. A hostile region could send a group of people just small enough to allow them all to become RV's, but just large enough to set our election cycle into an endless loop. I would never accept such a bill.

Edit: The only way this could be feasible is if the "NOTA" vote required a majority just like any other candidate. Even then I highly doubt I would agree to the reasoning behind it.
 
I think None of the Above might be dangerous for the reasons already mentioned.

Also, say there are only one or two people who use NOTA. In practice, those people could simply abstain or not register a vote.

If there is, for example, 15% or 25% who truly wish for a NOTA, that group should be more proactive and submit a candidate themselves. We have many ideas for when things go wrong in elections (which is not a bad thing at all, don't get me wrong), but I thinnk we need to focus on making sure things go RIGHT.

For example, if people don't like a given candidate, then get someone to run who you believe will better represent you. The period for declaration isn't just 24 hours, it's a full 7 days. As far as unopposed candidates go, I too would prefer t hat not to happen, but in some cases it's inevitable. I mean, I'm fairly certain that many people wouldn't want to run for Speaker just because of the nature of the job.

I would also go so far as to suggest that a "bad" leader elected as the result of people choosing the lesser of two evils might in fact stimulate more people to get involved in the political process the next time around.
 
None of the above is already in effect in a sense. By not voting you are selecting none. However such an option I think should be added in.

The none of the above option is used in real world countries such as Russia. I think if you do not like anyone that is running, you should not have to vote someone else just to make stance. The option for none of the above would be a good thing to have.
 
Nuclearweapons:
I think if you do not like anyone that is running, you should not have to vote someone else just to make stance. The option for none of the above would be a good thing to have.
Click to expand...
Nations are permitted in the TNP system to cast an absention as their vote, and that, to me, is the equivalent to "none of the above."

The political effect is that if a race ends up with a large number of absentions, it could be said that politically, the winner of such a race has a weaker mandate to govern that someone who is elected with a overwhemling majority and few, if any, stated absentions in the vote tally.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Nuclearweapons:
I think if you do not like anyone that is running, you should not have to vote someone else just to make stance.  The option for none of the above would be a good thing to have.
Click to expand...
Nations are permitted in the TNP system to cast an absention as their vote, and that, to me, is the equivalent to "none of the above."

The political effect is that if a race ends up with a large number of absentions, it could be said that politically, the winner of such a race has a weaker mandate to govern that someone who is elected with a overwhemling majority and few, if any, stated absentions in the vote tally.
Click to expand...
The matter of a plurality or a true majority (with abstentions) is nothing but a moral matter and will install leaders who are less than the peoples ideal.

Americanicus: Why not just . . . not vote?
Click to expand...

Because then you risk ruining our quorum and you lose your right to complain about the political process, and who really wants that?

It's not about abstentions, it's about having the right to not choose between two candidates who do not match our political ideal while having that vote mean something. Or even worst, a candidate running unopposed with no other option at the time available but might be available later on (say after a failed campaign). The hypotheticals can go on and on but the basics of it is that if we are only called upon to give consent once every three months, then at the very least allow us to give our full consent to those worth surrendering our authority to!

As to the matter of time constraints, this NOTA matter could be settled in the 14 days it took for our recent run-off (even less, if we weren't so concerned and needed to wait for a statement by the chief justice) and once again for those talking about voter fatigue, then let that cynical view be the reason that an election would be settled more quickly.
 
Yes, but that doesn't really make sense. You always have a right to not participate and people can judge that you are (a) apathetic or (b) can't find anyone who best represents your ideas. Either way, you make a political statement of some sort.

And if only one candidate is running (highly unlikely; almost impossible), then a "None of the Above" would do very little good as most people who cast a vote would prefer to have someone they weren't all that crazy about than no one at all. And "None of the Above" votes don't alter the positive vote count for that person, anyway.

And while the names have been changed to protect the innocent, abstention has the exact same practical effect, which is what I think we should be worrying about here: practical effect. Why go out of your way to create something that doesn't have a different practical effect?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Nations are permitted in the TNP system to cast an absention as their vote, and that, to me, is the equivalent to "none of the above."

The political effect is that if a race ends up with a large number of absentions, it could be said that politically, the winner of such a race has a weaker mandate to govern that someone who is elected with a overwhemling majority and few, if any, stated absentions in the vote tally.
Click to expand...
This I agree with. Perhaps an idea is born of this alone.

I propose the idea that if a particular election recieves 70% or greater (i.e., consensus) in abstentions from the voting block, the election for that position alone is held in abeyance, and the position is appointed post-election by the PM, and confirmed by the voters either aye or nay (no abstentions), with a confirmation period of five days.
 
Americanicus I:
And if only one candidate is running (highly unlikely; almost impossible) . . .
Click to expand...
Take a look at the history of our elections. Unopposed candidates are not exactly unheard of, i.e. the MoCE race last time, where we had only one candidate, who dropped out.

Dei's idea is intriguing, though . . .
 
Americanicus I:
And if only one candidate is running (highly unlikely; almost impossible), then a "None of the Above" would do very little good as most people who cast a vote would prefer to have someone they weren't all that crazy about than no one at all. And "None of the Above" votes don't alter the positive vote count for that person, anyway.
Click to expand...
ummm, we've had several positions filled in the recent election where only one candidate ran. The delegate and vice delegate, the Minister of Justice, the Speaker, the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs, Minister of Communications, and Minister of Culture and Education. Do you find that rare, highly unlikely, and almost impossible?

None of the Above alters the positive votes by running competitively with them, if they are substantially competitive then truly not only does the candidate lack the "moral authority" to govern but should be forfeit of their right to lead.

I propose the idea that if a particular election recieves 70% or greater (i.e., consensus) in abstentions from the voting block, the election for that position alone is held in abeyance, and the position is appointed post-election by the PM, and confirmed by the voters either aye or nay (no abstentions), with a confirmation period of five days.
Click to expand...

This I would agree with also but 70% is a tad high in my view, a candidate can float to a position with 35% of the vote? I can settle for 50% to 60%.
 
You have to keep in mind that under the current system, if an unopposed candidate recieves 50% of the votes in abstentions, they won't get the post. It would go to a run-off, same as if they were running against someone. Which is why this:

I propose the idea that if a particular election recieves 70% or greater (i.e., consensus) in abstentions from the voting block, the election for that position alone is held in abeyance, and the position is appointed post-election by the PM, and confirmed by the voters either aye or nay (no abstentions), with a confirmation period of five days.
Click to expand...

Does sound like a decent idea. Again, I think it should be lowered slightly (60%?), but I would actually vote for something like this. It avoids the possibility of endless elections, and is something easily settled. (Unless it's the PM who's having the problem, but then the elected cabinet could nominate someone)

:offtopic:
And if only one candidate is running (highly unlikely; almost impossible) . . .
Click to expand...
We have yet to hold an election where at least two positions were uncontested. Try doing a bit of homework. ;)
 
Hersfold:
You have to keep in mind that under the current system, if an unopposed candidate recieves 50% of the votes in abstentions, they won't get the post. It would go to a run-off, same as if they were running against someone.
Click to expand...
Actually...

TNP Law 5:
Section 4. Runoff Elections
A - When an Office has no candidate obtaining a majority, the two highest-placed candidates shall enter into a runoff.
Click to expand...

Does abstentions count as a candidate? They were even counted as ballots, if memory serves me well.
 
They were counted as ballots, yes. So, if a majority continues to be defined as 50%+1 of all ballots, they would not recieve a majority.
 
Hersfold:
Does sound like a decent idea. Again, I think it should be lowered slightly (60%?), but I would actually vote for something like this. It avoids the possibility of endless elections, and is something easily settled. (Unless it's the PM who's having the problem, but then the elected cabinet could nominate someone)
Click to expand...
I'd agree to that, personally, as long as the percentile is above 55.

I think I'll grab a copy of the relevant portion of the constitution and draw something up tonight.
 
I suppose it is about time we have more pointless bureaucracy on the table.

After reading all of this I have but one question:

What will this accomplish?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top