Discussion Thread: Offer ‘None of the above’ as an option on ballot papers

This is an archived discussion thread for the "Offer 'none of the above' an option on ballot papers" voting page. Voting, and this discussion thread, have now closed.   

Steve 1 month ago

You can do this already by 'spoiling' your ballot paper - these are recorded as official figure

Paul F 1 month ago in reply to Steve

planethubris and 2 more liked this.
This is reported as spoilt ballot paper and is thus ignored by politicians - i.e someone who has evaluated all candidates and decided not to vote for any of them is recorded the same as someone who just scribbles all over the paper. The ability to formally abstain and send that message without having to vote for a candidate would send a message to parliamentary candidates that none of them were considered worth voting for.

StefanB 1 month ago
 
1 person liked this.
Although there has always been the opportunity to abstain at an election, this has never been generally understood, and neither has the power of an abstention been truly understood either. This would formalise the process and provide the opportunity to give political negative feedback.
ModerateFlag
Like Reply

planethubris 1 month ago
 
5 people liked this.
The NOTA box is actually a lot more powerful than this write up suggests.

On average around 40% of the UK population don't vote. If we had a NOTA box and even half of those people turned out to tick it in a general election, by 2005 figures (when Blair's government were re-elected with the support of a mere 18.5% of the UK population), NOTA would win the popular nationwide vote with 20% of it. That's not even taking into account the people who vote because they feel they should but don't necessarily fully endorse the party they vote for. The NOTA box would pull in most of them as well.

Under proportional representation, the above scenario would invalidate the election and cause a re-run with the previous candidates disqualified.

Under our current First Past The Post (FPTP) system of course, it would have no bearing on the result, the second placed party behind the NOTA box would still form the new government. But in that scenario, with the popular vote unified behind one thing (NOTA), the legitimacy of that new government would be non-existent. Electoral reform, in the form of PR, would be inevitable under those circumstances.

Until those circumstances occur, there will never be PR in this country. It is a two party, FPTP system that serves those two paties perfectly well. They're not going to change it, unless they have to.

In a nutshell, if you want PR, or to scrap ID cards, or to stop wars or whatever it is... you need to campaign for the NOTA box FIRST. This idea should therefore, by rights, be top of this Power 2010 list, as it is the first and most important step from which all else will flow.

If even 1/4 of the abstaining 40% got behind such a campaign (that's MILLIONS of people), it would have to happen. Why? Because, the NOTA box is a democratic pre-requisite. Without it, it's not a democracy, simple as that. So to deny us it, in spite of millions of people demanding it and in light of the inarguable democratic logic of it, would be for the powers that be to openly admit that they loathe true democracy and don't want to see it in the UK.

Since so much of what the political elite get away with depends upon the illusion that we already have a democracy and that this is as good as it gets (thus silencing dissent and dis-empowering us all), they will have no choice but to give us the NOTA box if enough people wake up to this reality and demand the box with one loud voice.

The powers that be will be in a Catch 22 situation, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Luckily, this campaign is already under-way. You can join the movement here:

THE NONE OF THE ABOVE MOVEMENT (on Facebook - website in development)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=17...

Thanks for reading :)

johnling 2 weeks ago in reply to planethubris
Now that's what I call a superb analysis of the situation. Well done, and thank you for the information. I'm getting flak because UKIP fits my principles and therefore gets my vote, but my Tory chums think that I should vote for them so that the LibDems won't get in. Doh! So now that we're in Europe and run by Europe, maybe POWER2010 gives a new escape route, assuming we are still allowed some democracy in this country. NOTA has great appeal, thanks to your wise words.
Regards
John Ling

peaksteve 2 days ago in reply to planethubris
But in the real world, people would not turn-out to vote for nobody (they won't even vote for somebody)! This is a fun theoretical idea, but the real world is populated by people who know their vote makes no difference - this solution is hardly going to fire-them-up!
What we need is a popular movement for change - to vote for real people who WANT to change the system

planethubris 1 month ago

2 people liked this.
Paul is correct. The whole 'spoilt ballots are counted - it's the same as NOTA' thing is a total myth. They are all counted as 'spoilt', as in messed up in error. They don't count ballot's spoilt in protest separately. So it counts for nothing. In addition, you are added to the turnout figures just for walking into the polling station, regardless of what you do to the ballot paper. So spoiling the ballot in protest is doubly pointless. It's not counted and you push up the turnout figures, thus reinforcing the illusion-of-democracy and propping up our undemocratic two party system. It's a completely futile and counter-productive gesture.

Richard 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
I ran for office in my ward at the last local election and urged everyone to go out and vote, even if it was against me. Most people just didn't care one way or the other and a "None of the above" box would ring a wake up bell for everyone! Spoiling a ballot paper does not have the same level of universal recognition and remains the "unspoken option". 
You cannot expect people to vote for you if your name is not on the form, so why should we expect people to spoil a paper/vote for none of the above if the option is not a visible one?

michael phillips 1 month ago
 
1 person liked this.
By implementing this change, the 'spoiled vote' system of smothering discontent would be done away with.

BANKMAN 1 month ago
what about Banks Transparency and bonus's

prosser 1 month ago

3 people liked this.
Why is "Get out of Europe" not included. Your ideas are minor compared to that.

mary may 4 weeks ago
 
1 person liked this.
This would make plain to political parties that the voter is not apathetic - just not impressed by what the parties offer.
It is scandalous that a party can claim to have a popular mandate when it has the support of less than half of those who do bother to vote.

magicfishes 4 weeks ago
Why not a re-open nominations option, as in university elections?

gordonb 4 weeks ago

1 person liked this.
There would be some benefit if the percentage of NOTA was above say 25%, then the election would have to be re-run with different candiates at the parties expence

noneofabove 3 weeks ago
 
peaksteve and 1 more liked this.
I have changed my name by Deed Poll to None of the Above and am standing in Chingford and Woodford Green, can we help eachother? It is easy to do, will anyone join me? emailnone@noneabove.com

Guy Aitchison 3 weeks ago in reply to noneofabove
 
1 person liked this.
Hi Mr Above, would you like to write a blog for our website championing this reform for the POWER2010 pledge?

It would be great if you could.

noneofabove 3 weeks ago in reply to Guy Aitchison
 
1 person liked this.
Guy 

Love to, please give me an idea of what you want 

None

On Thu 28/01/10 1:13 PM , "Disqus" 
sent:
Guy Aitchison (unregistered) wrote, in response to noneofabove:

Hi Mr Above, would you like to write a blog for our website championing
this reform for the POWER2010 pledge?

It would be great if you could.

Link to comment: 

-----
Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment.

To turn off notifications, go to:

noneofabove 3 weeks ago in reply to Guy Aitchison
I've written to Mark Ross with a suggested blog, sorry, I should have
copied you in. The text was: 

  

Mark 

Photo attached, it's a bit formal, but I hope you can use it. 

BLOG (Please feel free to suggest changes, I've got it down to 182 words,
do you need it cut further) 

Why None of the Above. 

My brother and I were talking about the expenses issue and how some of
them didn't seem to 'get' what they had done wrong and he said we should
change our names to None of the Above and stand for Parliament. The
concept is simple, an MP should listen to his electorate, build a
consensus and represent that consensus in parliament. Martin Bell was the
first new independent since 1951, does that seem right? Once every five
years we get to vote and then our MP's are free to ignore us for the next
five years. Ours voting system means that whichever party doesn't get in
this time knows that, in due course, the other lot will be out and they
will be in. Is that democracy? 

I hope that people around the country will like the idea and we'll have
lots of "None of the Above's". There is also a NOTA party. If they win
seats they intend to resign and force a by election, providing the option
of "I don't like any of the candidates". 

On Thu 28/01/10 1:13 PM , "Disqus" 
sent:
Guy Aitchison (unregistered) wrote, in response to noneofabove:

Hi Mr Above, would you like to write a blog for our website championing
this reform for the POWER2010 pledge?

It would be great if you could.

Link to comment: 

-----
Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment.

To turn off notifications, go to:

stan69 2 weeks ago in reply to noneofabove
Hey None,

At the risk of p*ssing on your parade, you seem to be unaware that the NOTA party are redundant on account of a regulation which expressly prohibits the phrase None Of The Above from appearing on the ballot paper in relation to new political parties. I don't know what the rules are regarding independents who change their name, but you might want to look in to it.

I recently set up NOTA-UK, we are campaigning for an actual NOTA box to be included on the ballot paper. NOTA is a democratic pre-requisite, one the political elite would not be able to deny us if enough people demanded it (as in millions). So anything that raises awareness of this is a good thing.

However, the reason they have banned the phrase in relation to parties is legitimate. standing as a None Of The Above candidate is a contradiction in terms. NOTA is about withholding consent and saying NO. It is not about just voting for someone else.

For this to work, you would have to explain that you are running on the basis that you will resign immediately if elected, thus triggering a by-election, as that is what would happen in the event of a real NOTA box getting the most votes. If you don't do this, then you are not really representing None Of The Above.

More details of our campaign can be found here: http://www.nota-uk.org

We are also on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=173779446985

Drop us a line on there, we should probably co-ordinate our efforts.

Stan

noneofabove 2 weeks ago in reply to stan69
Stan69
Apparently the electoral services dept at Waltham Forest Council have said that I will be able to stand as it is my legal name. As luck would have it I will appear probably on the top of the ballot paper as Above, None of the, which should make it very unlikely that anyone will be confused, as well as which I am doing everything I can to explain to as many people as possible what I am doing. I have an approach which probably does mark me out as different enough to claim to be like none of the others.
What would be excellent is if other people decided to do similar, maybe we could make a really big difference. While I don't disagree with a none of the above option on ballot papers, the beauty of my approach is that it can be done right now, maybe if there were then a few of us in parliament we could, if our electorate's agree, campaign for the change. Although the idea of losing your identity over a political idea seems daunting, once you've made the decision it's remarkably easy. I made the decision on my 50th birthday, I decided 50 years was long enough for one name.
We could talk, my phone number is 07761 102540 

stan69 2 weeks ago in reply to noneofabove
Ok, the principle is fine but there's lots wrong with this approach I'm afraid. I won't go into it here, I will email you tonight to give you some things to mull over then give you a ring tomorrow.

Stan
http://www.nota-uk.org/

leonedney 3 weeks ago

2 people liked this.
Furthermore, if 'non of the above' should prove to be the most popular in a constituency it can then be argued that the elected MP does not have a mandate to serve the constituency. If this were the case they may then have to face a by-election annually. This would give the proposal the teeth that it currently lacks. Non the less, even in it's current state this is a very interesting proposal and this small change would liven up local politics like nothing before!

Arthur 2 weeks ago in reply to leonedney

3 people liked this.
Why not go further? How about a situation where if "none of the above" actually gets more votes than the other candidates, then the election is void, a by-election is held within a set period of time - and the candidates who previously stood are barred from running in the by election?

If "none of the above" actually gets the majority of the votes that's a clear sign that the parties involved need to *THINK AGAIN* about who they put up for election, after all!

Phil 1 week ago in reply to Arthur
 
1 person liked this.
I was about to suggest exactly the same point as Arthur has made. If we don't take this extra step then we still run the risk of having a 'best of a bad bunch' MP who only won because their opponents weren't up to much. As it is, a high NOTA vote without any consequences would be great at sending a message to political parties, which is enough to earn it a lot of support in my opinion, these parties don't have a good track record of listening to these messages.

robertcorfe 2 weeks ago
It is of paramount importance that there must be changes to the financial institutions before any other reforms are contemplated since finance is ultimate power, and without change to the way the banks are managed of investing institutions are operated, all else is meaningless or rendered useless. History has demonstrated this again and again. See my forthcoming book, THE FUTURE OF POLITICS (ISBN 978-1-906791-46-9) to be published on 1st March 2010, which pursues this argument.

edwardmurphy 2 weeks ago
I disagree with this option. However, the ballot should be more inclusive by doing away with the financial penalty that candidates have to pay just to be able to stand.
If Jesus Christ came down to this Earth again, and stood as a candidate, there would be voters amongst us who would not agree with Him.
The voters must do a little bit of homework themselves, on the candidates standing, and vote for the individual who is able to satisfy most of his/her needs

janooms 2 weeks ago
We are having this debate because of low turn-out of voters. The politicians conveniently blame the public's response on apathy and think that by making it easier for us to cast votes (in shopping malls) that more of the electorate will vote. What they don't understand is that it is not apathy but dissatisfaction that deters people from voting. Why should they when they can't see the difference between the policies of one party and the next, when their politicians never listen to them, when election pledges are never delivered and then they see their politicians getting rich on their tax money. If people were prepared to go to the ballot boxes and spoil their papers by writing what they think of so-called democracy then the number of spoiled ballot papers show that the public are willing to come to vote but do not consider any of the candidates suitable. - "Democracy is being allowed to vote for the candidate you dislike least." - Byrne, Robert.
With more "protest" votes there may be more public debates and hopefully, the public will demand more votes on actual issues. We shall be a step nearer to real democracy where one man has one vote for one issue. With the communication technology we have, this is entirely possible.

William Gladys 2 weeks ago

3 people liked this.
Most of the stuff listed won't bring the change I/we want to see, however unless the public opened the door to a REAL democracy and abolished the Monarchy.

Christopher Townson 2 weeks ago
Thre are some more thoughts on this proposal (by my good self amongst others) at the end of Mark Pack's post http://www.power2010.org.uk/blog/entry/an-intri...

SackTheParties 1 week ago
I would welcome the addition of a "None of the above" option to the ballot paper, but not in the form presented here. To be of any benefit, the statement would need to have some meaning, rather than just a "statement of discontent".

And I don't mean rerunning the election. What good would that be? It would just have another set of party-appointed candidates no better than the first lot.

Instead, if "None of the above" attracted the largest number of votes in an election, I would like to see the MP being appointed at random from the electoral roll, rather like jury service. There is no reason to suggest that someone selected in this way would be any worse than a party-selected candidate. Indeed, if all MPs were selected in this way, we would actually have a parliament representative of the people rather than of the political parties.

wferguson 1 week ago
I agree there should be a NOTA box on ballot papers and a re-run should NOTA win.
During the Euro farce elections I read several reports about the poor turn out at this 'who wants to be a millionaire' farce. They has spun 'apathy' into 'contentment,' and the idea that most of us have the gut churning feeling that there is bugger all we can do about it isn't mentioned because the EU give these euro reporters a nice living.
What I want, and please forgive me if it sounds draconian, is compulsary voting. Once the lard arses, bad weather cowards, apathetic, or content are compelled to exercise their hard won right to vote, only then will we know that NOTA or one of the unholy trinity fodder for the party whip or well meaning independent have actually got the support of the majority.

drgs100 1 week ago
We had this a York University NUS elections. It was excellent and I regularly used it given the state of York's student politics.

jack 1 week ago
So superficial - ticking a box is powerlessness fetishised, whether it is for 'A. Rsehole', for 'A N Other' or 'None of the false choices you offer me'.Withdraw legitimacy by doing something more creative instead.Withhold power by withholding taxes and servitude at every opportunity. Don't vote - go out and make some friends instead!

Roberto 1 week ago
A very good point indeed. If the majority of tax-payers could be persuaded to withhold taxes then changes would occur, however we need to be specific and there is the problem. I would like to stop a percentage of my tax that the government spends unwisely on armaments, but not the NHS for example. More comments please.

janlloyd 1 week ago
This should be done in conjuction with laws that make it a stautory requirement to vote.Christopher Townson 1 week ago in reply to janlloyd

On the contrary, this mitigates against the need for such a law:

Compulsory voting is a means of justifying the claim to a mandate upon which representative democracies are dependent. However, it is a totalitarian means of doing so (in the absence of NOTA) because it compels you to make a choice of candidate to elect to parliament against your will.

If one had the NOTA option, this would be less of a problem because one would not be compelled to vote to elect a candidate to parliament whom one did not actually wish to elect. But why even attempt to force people to vote?

The point of NOTA is that it provides a means and structure for voting which does result in the election of a candidate. As a result of that, both "sides" get what they want: the voters have a way of registering their discontent with the available options and have formal support for doing so. Politicians can legitimately claim a mandate because they have been elected with these "refusals" counted. With NOTA in place, if you still cannot be bothered to turn up and register your discontent, then your discontent is clearly not urgent enough! You have only yourself to blame.

It's not about *forcing* people to be involved in democratic politics -- its simply about not *preventing* them.

We must allow room for genuine apathy, indifference and laziness!

Jim Halcrow 1 week ago
I would like to see "No Suitable Candidate Offered" candidates in the General Election and in the Scottish Parliament Constituency Elections.

A P 5 days ago
erm...why not just spoil your vote? ...

Christopher Townson 5 days ago in reply to A P
because spoiling your ballot counts for nothing: if everyone except 1 person spoiled there ballot, the candidate with the 1 vote would be elected.

JulianTisi 4 days ago
This idea comes from the "all politicians are the same" school of thought - what message does that send to people wanting to enter politics because they genuinely want to change things?

There is always a choice - even if it's between the best of a bad bunch. It's intellectually lazy to assume they're all the same. And in any case if "reopen nominations" wins what then? If there were better candidates out there, why did they not have the guts to stand in the first place?

Christopher Townson 4 days ago in reply to JulianTisi
Julian -- there are a lot of flaws in what you say. I will try not to repeat arguments already made elsewhere on this site (in this thread andhttp://www.power2010.org.uk/blog/entry/an-intri... for example) but I will respond to some of your rhetorical questions:

1. Voting is *not* about sending a message to people who *want* to enter politics, it is about giving (or withholding) a mandate from those that already *have*. Besides which, I do not see that it sends any kind of negative message. On the contrary, it helps to enhance the representativeness and accountability of democracy.

2. In a hypothetical scenario, if you had to make a choice between becoming a murderer or a rapist, is that a real choice? I would suggest that any "choice" you made here would in fact be a facet of external "force" placed upon you. In other words, how bad does the "choice" have to be before you would accept the desirability of formal abstention in that scenario. The real point here is that many are already "abstaining" in elections by making the choice not to vote ... but that this act has no formal recognition within democratic politics in this country at present.

3. As for "not having the guts to stand" ... well, that is just a ridiculous point! As you must surely already know, (a) this has little or nothing to do with "guts" and much more to do with money, infrastructural support, organisation etc etc; also (b) you should not be compelled to *become* a full-time politician in order to be involved and to count in a representative democracy -- the role of "member of the electorate" is (in theory at least) the *primary* role in democratic politics. This is why being able to fully account for abstentions is so vital in a representative democracy where the legitimacy of claims to a mandate are critical.

Before you make the accusation of "intellectual laziness", you should first ensure that you have a coherent position from which you are making that accusation. As far as I can at present, you do not.

As for what happens when NOTA wins: this is you 1 valid question but it gains its legitimacy only from the vague wording of the proposal as presented here. I agree that this needs to be clearer. I would suggest that you simply have to do the whole thing again ... if NOTA wins any number of rounds, I think you can be assured that there would be extensive (media) analysis of "why" it had won and that would inevitably colour the subsequent round(s) -- so they would not simply be the same thing again.

stan69 4 days ago in reply to Christopher Townson
Absolutely spot on, I would only add that there is actually no mystery to what would happen if the NOTA box won an election. Under PR, the election would be void and have to be re-run with the previous candidates disqualified. That is democracy in action. Under our FPTP system, however, the party with the next largest vote share would form the next goverment. But they would do so with no legitimacy as the larger popular vote would be unified behind one thing: NOTA. From this untenable position, PR would inevitably bloom. This is in fact the only realistic way to achieve PR. More details can be found on the NOTA-UK website: http://www.nota-uk.org

Jim Halcrow 1 day ago in reply to JulianTisi
Because the BETTER candidates did not have the megabucks to pay for deposits.

The Atomium 4 days ago
People do have the option to spoil their votes, and I might argue that this is only pointless because the number of people that do is not high enough to be significant. The count of spoiled votes tends to be so small that it could conceivably reflect genuine error, rather than protest, and can therefore be ignored by the parties, the media, and the government. If more people were aware that they could do this, that it is not illegal, and that all spoiled votes must be counted and declared in the result, then maybe significant numbers would register their dissatisfaction in this way. It seems to me that if the number of spoiled votes exceeded the number gained by the winning candidate in any seat, and this fact was ignored, then surely the same number of "none of the above" votes could be ignored just as easily.

"None of the above", then, in my view is just a legitimized form of spoiling one's vote. I do agree that this legitimacy may have an effect in attracting people to actually do it, but I don't see that it would automatically force anybody to take notice of the result. And even we could make the entrenched parties recognize voter discontent, why couldn't we use the same magic to make them institute proportional representation while we're at it?

Christopher Townson 4 days ago in reply to The Atomium
Atomium -- I would like to suggest a slight modification to what you say: spoiling ballots is not pointless because so few people do it; it is pointless because, even if almost everyone were to do this, then there would still be no formal process for handling that as a form of abstention.

As I understand the NOTA proposal (i.e. as I think it should be implemented), were NOTA to win the largest share of the vote, then it would have to be recognized as the "victor" ... ignoring for now what might need to happen subsequently should this occur (e.g. another round of voting).

That is most definitely not the case with spoiled ballots.

stan69 4 days ago in reply to The Atomium
As discussed at length on our website ( http://www.nota-uk.org ) spoiled ballots and None Of The Above have nothing in common whatsoever. NOTA is way of registering a legitimate, counted protest vote; a way to with-hold consent to being governed by any of those put forward (a human right in any true democracy); a way to say NO. This is something we currently cannot do in our undemocratic system.

Spoiling the ballot is not the same thing at all. All ballots spoilt in protest are lumped in with those spoilt in error. The political establishment never regard the spoilt ballot figure as a protest and it is never presented as such. That would be harder to get away with if significant numbers of people did it, but it would still play out that way. In addition, you are added to the turnout figures just for attending the polling station, regardless of what you do to the ballot. So it is doubly pointless, indeed, it is counter-productive. When you spoil the ballot you assist the maintenance of the illusion-of-democracy whilst not registering any kind of protest or 'NO' vote whatsoever.

This is why we need a NOTA option. It is absolutely fundamental to the concept of democracy that the government must to secure the consent of the governed. To give consent, one needs to be able to withhold consent. We can't. Therefore, it is not a democracy. NOTA is the only way to rectify this.

stan69 4 days ago
As stated before, this write up doesn't remotely address how powerful NOTA actually is. Some of you seem to think that it is a token gesture to enable protest with no actual consequences if NOTA carried the popular vote, which is false. This is understandable on account of what this write-up omits.

In a PR system, NOTA coming out on top would by definition void the election and cause a re-run election (which would have to happen within two weeks) with all the previous (and rejected) candidates disqualified. The incumbent government would obviously hold the fort in the meantime, so there would be no chaos or anarchy as some have suggested.

Of course, in our current FPTP system, the party with the second highest vote share would most likely still form the next government. But that government's position would be untenable as the larger popular vote would be unified behind one thing: NOTA (as opposed to spread across all the other parties). Electoral reform (PR) would have to follow.

In addition, NOTA means an end to the notion of 'safe' seats. That immediately puts all constituencies up for grabs and dismantles the two party system, even with FPTP still in place. That in itself would change the face of politics forever.

NOTA is therefore absolutely the first step along the road to the complete electoral and political overhaul that our system desperately needs. With NOTA in place, if the parties didn't clean up their act and field genuine policies and genuine candidates, they would be rejected. The whole point of it is that the potential for re-runs and disqualifications would automatically transform our system for the better and force all concerned to lift their game and appeal to the increasingly large and discerning percentage of the population who currently reject the system out of disgust by simply not voting. In other words, they would have to stop lying and start meaning what they say.

More details can be found on the NOTA-UK website: http://www.nota-uk.org

The Atomium 3 days ago in reply to stan69
Yes, I agree that ideally, a legitimate "none of the above" option on the ballot paper does represent a better, clearer way to register one's disaproval than having to resort to vote spoiling. I say this primarily because it would encourage more people to do it, having the reassurance that it was officially sanctioned. And I agree with your logic, its potential for reform becomes quite significant indeed if it is backed up with the power to force a re-run of the election with new candidates.

But here's the thing: we don't yet have PR in our electoral system, and there are no signs of any real appetite for it from either of the two parties that are likely to form the next government, or indeed any subsequent government. The Tories have to oppose it, because they know it would effectively lock them out of power for generations. Some in Labour support it, but they can never really seriously consider true PR because they know it will unite the Tories against it, unite the Lib Dems in favour, and split them down the middle.

So, much though we all might hate it, we are stuck with FPTP. You rightly say that the party with the most seats can still form a government, even if the largest share of the vote went to the NOTA option. However, under the system as it stands, that could still happen. It is quite possible (indeed fairly likely at the next election) for the Conservatives to win a significantly larger share of the national vote, but for Labour to retain more seats, even an overall majority, and win a fourth term in office. The system is, and perhaps always will be, biased towards the incumbents.

Now, in such a situation - where Labour forms a government with a small but sufficient majority in the house, but with a share of the vote several percentage points below the Tories - would their position be untenable? Would it really? You and I might shout from the rooftops that it is, but sadly no one is going to pay much attention to what we say. The government will simply ignore the national vote share, as they have done before; after all, it's only really of academic interest under a FPTP system anyway, it's not the way our system works. They will still say that they have won the election (technically true), and that they have a "broad basis of support from the electorate" (also arguably true, they did win more seats). Even the Tories couldn't complain too much, because they like the FPTP system, and this would only highlight its failings. Our system operates on convention, and there is no precedent for such a situation. It would be entirely in the winning party's hands, and they could ignore any voices of dissent quite easily.

And, likewise if NOTA represented the largest share of the vote, but there were no hard and fast rules on what would follow (and why would there be, necessarily?) then it seems to me that pretty much the same thing would happen. The party with the most seats could still claim a legitimate win under the FPTP rules, and discount the NOTA vote with little more difficulty than they might spoiled votes, or as they have done with low voter turnout in most recent elections. "Voter apathy" might be re-termed "Voter discontent", and I imagine Gordon Brown would announce grave-faced that "lessons must be learned", and that all parties must "re-engage with voters", but then proceed to explain how he plans to do that through his programme in government. Would he really voluntarily give up his office? I don't think so.

PR, no matter how much you and I might wish it, would probably be the last consequence of this situation, realistically speaking, as the only party to genuinely support the idea are the Liberals, who as we know, stand no chance of gaining enough seats for anything close to a majority under FPTP. Sure, if there was a definite system in place for dealing with a NOTA win, or for that matter a spoiled vote win, or even a very low turnout - such as a forced re-run - then it would be a different matter.

But, given that we can't force any party to support even NOTA on it's own, let alone with the follow-on conditions that it would need to be effective, how are we going to make it a reality? And even if we could, in that case couldn't we just institute PR from the get-go?

stan69 3 days ago in reply to The Atomium
An excellent response, thank you for opening up the debate :)

All the points you raise are valid but the underlying thrust of your post seems to be that NOTA would be no more effective than spoiling the ballot or just abstaining. This is simply not the case.

The NOTA option that we are arguing for (woefully misrepresented by the terrible POWER2010 write up - sorry, but it's true!) is a fully fledged, legitimate option to say NO and withhold consent, something that is central to the concept of democracy. As such it is something that simply cannot be dismissed, once it exists.

Obviously, there would have to be a bill and legislation put in place that stipulates precisely what would happen in the event of a NOTA win. But there would be no way to fudge that really, it is implicit in the concept that if the majority vote None Of The Above, the election is, by definition, void. Of course, then there would have to be a mechanism in place for what happens next, namely a re-run election, which the previous candidates would naturally be barred from standing in as they have already been roundly rejected. That is democracy in action.

If they passed the NOTA legislation without that mechanism, so that the party with the most votes after NOTA can still form the next government, and if that ever happened, that new government would have no legitimacy whatsoever because the majority vote would be unified behind one thing: NOTA (as opposed to spread across all other parties). So immediately, there would have to be further reform, PR being the only option left (under which, FPTP is dispensed with and there would have to be re-runs in the event of a NOTA win anyway).

But not including that mechanism from the off would be hard to justify, as really, if you have NOTA at all, it can be no other way. NOTA, by it's very nature, is totally black and white. You either have it in the form I describe above, or you don't. Because if you don't, it's not a democracy. It really is as simple as that.

As for getting it place, if we could get a significant % of the population to fully understand this concept and vocally demand it, eventually it would have to happen because it is central to democracy and the powers that be have to maintain the illusion-of-democracy at all times. Ignorance of our current system, what NOTA is and how it works is therefore the only barrier to achieving democracy in the UK. The government, whether Labour or Tory, simply couldn't argue against NOTA without arguing against democracy, once this ignorance of NOTA is surpassed. So they would have to give it to us. They would be in a catch 22 situation. To deny us it in those circumstances would be to openly admit being anti-democracy and pro-authoritarianism. Of course, those in the know already know this about them. But the majority still labour under the illusion-of-democracy that the political system and media portray. If they didn't, and if they got behind the NOTA cause in significant numbers, the only chance of survival that the government and system as it stands would have would be to acquiesce and give us the option.

From that point, nature would take it's course.

Christopher Townson 2 days ago in reply to stan69
 
stan69 liked this.
Atomium, Stan69 -- excellent points and great debate here :D

I would like to just chip in just to re-emphasise one aspect of NOTA which has already been mentioned above but that I see as being absolutely critical:

No matter how undemocratic our system is in reality, all democracies still depend absolutely on a claim to the legitimacy of their mandate. We are witnessing right now what happens when that belief is eroded to the extent that the structural integrity of the system on which that claim is based begins to crumble.

This much is totally obvious and is made abundantly clear in the hand-wringing over falling turnouts etc. However, so long as this is restricted to the media and, from a politico-legal perspective, elected politicians can still continue to claim "victory" (because spoiled ballot, not voting etc do not possess unambiguous intent) things will carry on as normal.

Once you provide a formal means of abstention which has to be accounted for from that politico-legal perspective, then things start to look very, very different indeed.

One of the really powerful things about NOTA as an idea is that you can extricate it really is not a divisive or factional idea. We all win: those who harbour a desire to utilise a protest vote would be able to do so and, from the perspective of elected representatives, claims to legitimacy of a mandate are greatly enhanced, whilst the potential for other subsequent democratic reforms to occur is significantly increased.

It sows the seeds of a fundamental shift in our relation to and practice of democracy in this country in a purely positive direction.

The most powerful ideas are often the most simple. Unfortunately, this often also means that it can be difficult to get people to understand and realise their potential. That is due to a failure of imagination.

So, people: *really* think about it! Then vote for NOTA now!!

Whatever your position, whatever else you believe in or stand for, NOTA holds the key to helping you get there.

It is the necessary first step.

stan69 2 days ago in reply to Christopher Townson
Here, here! The first step indeed, all others are premature without it.

Frank 2 days ago in reply to stan69

stan69 liked this.
I have just been to the NOTA website and have learned something. I would urge all to have a read and inwardly digest the information written there then I am sure you will agree with what stan69 and friends has brought to the attention of all. We must advance with a clear understanding of what we want to achieve and how we are going to achieve those goals. It must be quite clear to all that this system is totally wrong and undemocratic and has been for years, all to the benefit of the main parties who have no desire to see change for obvious reasons.

Frank.

King of Shrews 3 days ago
Voting should be made compulsory, easier and have the right to abstain

Christopher Townson 2 days ago in reply to King of Shrews
Yes: you should have the right to abstain. This is a basic part of what NOTA represents.

No: voting should not be made compulsory. That would be a totalitarian use of legal force in an attempt justify claims to a mandate. Once formal means of abstention and a process for acting upon abstentions is provided, that use of legal force becomes totally unnecessary.

Dave Teer 3 days ago

stan69 liked this.
I would like to see this win because here in America we often vote for the lessor of two evils so it is more of a vote against than a vote for anyone. I have been for a NOTA option here for 50 years, if it passes in England maybe we could use that as a springboard here to get a similar movement going.

Christopher Townson 2 days ago in reply to Dave Teer
Hi Dave,

Great to hear a contribution from over the pond :D

Is there any organised movement campaigning for this in the US at present? In discussions with American friends, we often end up bemoaning the state of "democratic choice" in our respective countries!

I agree that, were one of the US or UK to implement this, the likelihood of the other following would be greatly enhanced. It would make sense to "join up" any NOTA campaigns that exist in Europe and the US.

peaksteve 2 days ago
This is completely pointless, other than comedy value, and will achieve nothing except allow the existing incumbents to carry-on un-hindered!
PLEASE vote for someone - anyone - who DOES want to change the system. If enough people did, things might change!

stan69 2 days ago in reply to peaksteve
Steve, like many people at this time, is unfortunately completely unaware of the truth about our current system and how NOTA actually works. Please take the time to read mine and Chistopher Townson's comments further down this page to find out why NOTA is far from pointless and in fact the first and most important step towards reforming our political and electoral system, without which all other steps are premature and truly pointless. Or just visit the NOTA-UK website: http://www.nota-uk.org

stan69 2 days ago in reply to stan69
PS: And vote for this reform if you haven't already - because if this doesn't make the top 5, POWER2010 will effectively be on a hiding to nothing with the five that do.

Thom 1 day ago
Having recently check this out, it is odd that this is the only complete phrase that is banned from the party names registartion section of the act!

mikedempsey 9 hours ago
How about a vote against option, eg, I dont like labour but I cant decide between Lib Dem and Tory so I wish to vote against Labour.

stan69 6 hours ago in reply to mikedempsey
That's exactly what None Of The Above is for.

stan69 6 hours ago
As stated before, if this proposal doesn't make the top 5, POWER2010 will effectively be on a hiding to nothing with the five that do as NOTA is the fully plantable seed from which all other reform can grow. Without the seed, nothing will grow. So PLEASE vote for it NOW for all our sakes, before it is too late... More info on our current system, what NOTA is and why it is so central to the concept of democracy can be found here: http://www.nota-uk.org

jamespriest 4 hours ago
There's nothing good about our political system which uses the general public to give its blood to protect the elite. Bad education, distractions like celebrity, fashion, cheap technology and food used to dumb down the people, while those with money and power do what they like and i mean what ever they like. Poverty creates human sex traffic, drugs creat slaves and give power to the police to invade privace, so called terror laws to take away freedom and is used for divide and rule, while the ruling class use people in any which way they want. Time for change, yes, time to get rid off the class system to hold all these criminals to account for their actions. While we eat cheap food, people all over the world suffer. Arrest 'the above' and their friends, take away their priviledged life style, corrupted by money. All the wrongs in this country have come from those at the top. All the evils come from those who sit at the top.
Say no to corrupt political idealism, say no to capitlism, communism, monarchy, state control and religious dogma. Time to form something new. 
Time to look at what works around the world for the people and form a new idealism before the old one's takes full control backed by police and state control. 
Education, truth 'no matter how hurtful' and honesty is the only way.

Joanne Barlow 1 hour ago
I think this would be a great idea.

Reactions

philipjohn 1 week ago

From Twitter via BackType

@simonperry One for you from @Power_2010 http://www.power2010.org.uk/votes/entry/a-none-of-the-above-option-on-ballot-papers/

Power_2010 3 weeks ago

From Twitter via BackType

Mr Above -the indy candidate who changed name to None of the Above -has just joined a Power2010 discussion thread http://tinyurl.com/ybfs59s

graphiclunarkid 3 weeks ago

From Twitter via UberVU
One more retweet from Chiado
RT @Power_2010: Mr Above -the indy candidate who changed name to None of the Above -has just joined a Power2010 discussion thread http://tinyurl.com/ybfs59s

samw152 1 month ago

From Twitter via UberVU

just voted for a "none of the above" option to make the #POWER2010 Election Pledge, do the same at http://tinyurl.com/ybrhkvj

dominiccampbell 1 month ago

From Twitter via BackType

Voting for a 'none of the above' option on ballot papers over on @Power_2010http://bit.ly/7aReAD

louderdevelop 1 month ago

From Twitter via UberVU

RT @dominiccampbell: Voting for a 'none of the above' option on ballot papers over on @Power_2010 http://bit.ly/7aReAD