None of the above

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
Yes, it's been brought up before but I'm willing to give it another chance. The basics of it is, if more than 1/3 of the vote is abstain then the list of candidates will be released from campaigning with a new election called forth. The original list of candidates would be barred from running again of course.

Since I haven't found anything in the Constitution which says anything about winning conditions (pls correct me if I'm wrong) I'm just going to introduce this as Legal Code bill.

TNP Law
Section 1
a) Should the number of Abstains amount to more than the number of votes of any one of the candidates, they will be barred from running for this particular position during this particular electoral cycle.
b) A new election would then be called with all prior stated electoral rules in place.
c) Should no other candidate decide to run, the original election results will stand.
Click to expand...

Ok hounds, rip it apart.
 
Whilst you do address this in point c sort of, I must admit, I don't really see the point. If you bar any of the original candidates from running the likelyhood is you won't get anyone running for the re-election. We don't always have contested elections as it is, so I'm not sure there is much point to this.

Personally, I'm broadly against any kind of "none of the above" option, as IMO if you are that strongly against any of the candidates running for a position, you should run yourself for something- particularly here in NS, unlike RL, where there isn't anything stopping voters from running (aside from being lazy goits).
 
I agree with Haor. We don't really need this, and in the event it does come into force, our elections could get even more complicated and confusing.

If we're to do anything with our election system, we should be making abstentions not count towards anything - as it is now, a large abstain (none of the above) campaign could prevent anyone from ever taking office, something which almost happened in the last Prime Minister election and could have easily happened in the MoIIA election has CM and Limi not agreed to call it off.
 
Well, that’s all just fine but lets just say the number of abstains out number the amount of actual votes for candidates. Would it not make sense to conclude that a majority of voted found the candidates run to ill suited and unqualified for the position? Perhaps the 1/3 percentage is too low and it should instead be 50% plus one.
 
I can see what you're getting at but in my personal experience, the only thing stopping me from running in any number of positions is that I am satisfied with those currently running. But if they dropped out or none of the above option came in to play, then it opens up a whole new oppourtunity for those who thought a) they could never win b) they felt the one guy was a safer choice or c) no way in hell is THAT guy going to run unapposed.

Plus, since it happens after the election we do have a whole slew of losers shopping for new positions.

With those running unopposed, I'd be lying if I said this wasn't targeted at them but I do think if the public truly swells and throws out a supposed coronation, someone else will volunteer.

Blue Wolf - How about if the number of abstentions is greater than votes for either candidate?
 
Absentions being counted in determining the number needed for election was an intrepretation introduced by the Election Commissioner(s) and was not derived from the Court or from the Constitution or Legal Code.
The problem arose, I believe, because of a misunderstanding that a cast absention could be counted to meet the quorum requirement, where it applies. The easiest way to resolve this long term is to enact a Regional Assembly rule, perhaps, that "Absentions cast by members of the Regional Assembly in any election or referendum may be counted for purposes of determining participation of a quroum where required by the Constitution. Absentions may not be counted to determine the results of any election or any referendum. Since all votes on laws or constitutional amendments are techincally "referends" that should solve the problem.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Absentions being counted in determining the number needed for election was an intrepretation introduced by the Election Commissioner(s) and was not derived from the Court or from the Constitution or Legal Code.
The problem arose, I believe, because of a misunderstanding that a cast absention could be counted to meet the quorum requirement, where it applies. The easiest way to resolve this long term is to enact a Regional Assembly rule, perhaps, that "Absentions cast by members of the Regional Assembly in any election or referendum may be counted for purposes of determining participation of a quroum where required by the Constitution. Absentions may not be counted to determine the results of any election or any referendum. Since all votes on laws or constitutional amendments are techincally "referends" that should solve the problem.
Click to expand...
But this isn't geared toward the passing of laws but when de-facto coronations are in place of electing officials, either because they are the only one running or from quite simply a complete difference between the available candidates.

So my reason for introducing this was not an issue with absentions being counted, nor the Court ruling but quite simply majority will being subverted from lack of a true choice.
 
Schnauzer:
and was not derived from the Court
Click to expand...
Um... Schnauzer? We're getting that from a court ruling that very clearly states that abstentions are counted.
Chief Justice Byardkuria:
Abstentions, while not counted for victory totals, do constitute votes. As such, a majority is defined as more than half of all ballots cast, rather than half of all ballots cast for a candidate. So yes - if 90 votes are cast, and the totals are 44-43-3, a runoff would be required, as it would be difficult for either candidate to successfully demonstrate a mandate.
Click to expand...
http://z13.invisionfree.invalid/TNP/index.php?...dpost&p=4494344

That is how the question arose, but we do have a court ruling that firmly states that abstentions count towards election totals as well.

Sniffles:
Blue Wolf - How about if the number of abstentions is greater than votes for either candidate?
Click to expand...

That I might buy. Although the chances of that happening are horribly slim.
 
mr_sniffles:
But this isn't geared toward the passing of laws but when de-facto coronations are in place of electing officials, either because they are the only one running or from quite simply a complete difference between the available candidates.

So my reason for introducing this was not an issue with absentions being counted, nor the Court ruling but quite simply majority will being subverted from lack of a true choice.
Click to expand...

I don't see this as addressing that. The likelyhood is, from what has happened in the past, that no-one would stand for the re-election and then the PM would have to appoint someone to the position after the elections.

What we need to do is encourage more people to run, whether they think they can win or not, elections shouldn't be about popularity but about the best person for the job. What we need to do in that respect is remove the current requirement for +50% of the vote to win, otherwise in almost every race with more than 2 candiates we'll have run-offs which is going to deter people from running in the future, as well as leaving us in limbo for a while (like happened this election with the PM, again).
 
I've never seen to point of any regulation on election victories. Person with the most votes wins. In a draw the PM decides (or the Delegate if the PM election is tied). In the current age of declining activity, it seems self destructive to put these blocks in the way of participation.

Aside from that, this change looks quite easy to abuse. Considering the last elections I remember had turn out of around 25 - 30 (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), it would take only a small number of individuals to prevent elections of virtually all positions. Having one or two ministerial positions in run-off is alright, but having most of the government un-elected because the people that want to do the job aren't allowed to until we see if anyone else wants to stand is asking for trouble.
 
When I have a chance, I'll go back and look at the ruling, but I still believe it to be a misinterpretation, and I'll wager that a positive legislation enacting a principle can clear the matter up. What is clear to me is that the use of counting absentions for anything other than establishing quorum needs to be fixed in the simpliest possible way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top