Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Positive Abstention

18:29 / 12.08.02

Just found this from Ananova news agency (edited a little for length):

Voters could get the chance to 'positively abstain' under proposals being considered by an electoral watchdog. It comes as part of a review of ballot paper formats by the Electoral Commission - the body which oversees the modernisation of voting procedures. This will effectively give voters the option of ticking a box for 'none of the above.' Such a change would allow voters who want to register their disaffection with the available range of candidates a positive alternative to staying away from the polling stations altogether. Consultation papers will follow by the end of this year, with the Commission sending its recommendations to the Government next spring for ministers to make final decisions."

This, I assume, could also pave the way to making voting mandatory.

Abstention is something we've discussed here before, but I didn't think it was even a possibility - I would like the opportunity to say well, I've thought about it and I don't like what any of you are offering. But would the British Government really introduce it? What would they realistically do if a huge percentage of those who turn out (or nearly all, if we have to by law) say that they don't want any of the choices given?

18:37 / 12.08.02

Is this very different from spoiling a ballot paper? IIRC the spoiled papers get counted, but not announced. Is that right?

Most people who I know that don't vote refuse to give the system credibility by not taking part in it to any degree.

18:46 / 12.08.02

Well, that's one of the questions that will inevitably come up:

If people positively abstain, then are they saying that, should the parties just pull their socks up a bit, then they might be voting next time? Will many of us be ticking that box, and changing 'None of the above' to 'Not ever any of the above'?

If people just stay at home when they have the chance to positively abstain, the Government can then claim that people are basically happy with the system, just lazy when it comes to elections.

If there are a massive number of positive abstentions, will the Government be prepared to make massive changes?

19:54 / 12.08.02

There was an initiative on the ballot here in California last year which would have had the effect of putting "None of the above" on the ballot in every election. You can write it in now (as I do) but the results never get reported--if the initiative had passed, they would have to be.

It was, of course, defeated.

Grumble, grumble.

01:12 / 13.08.02

What's the point? I put 'none of the above', I neglect to vote. I don't see a difference. Ultimately it still helps the more conservative parties get into power and retain control.

Your protest is duly noted and ignored.

07:37 / 13.08.02

"Your protest is duly noted and ignored."

Yes, I'm rather expecting this to be the case. I'd still probably make a positive abstention, although it's introduction is not going to make me think all's well in the political world.

10:42 / 13.08.02

The British Government would have to be seriously considering adding what I think is a real move towards true democracy. The terrible turn out for the last general election (59.4%) even had international election inspectors twitching.

I think it would be possible to start local campaigns for the 'None of the above', when elections swing around. Getting voters to question not only existing party policy, but also the governmental process. It could be quite a tool.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

10:47 / 13.08.02

As long as the result "scored" by "none of the above" is made public knowledge, I think this is a damn good idea. Though, as sfd says, doesn't mean everything's okay.

It might make politicians face the awful truth that people aren't refusing to vote for them out of "voter apathy" (for fuck's sake, I know this isn't a trustworthy demographic, but most of the people I know who abstain from voting are a fuck sight more politically active than those who think making a cross every year is all their society requires of them), but BECAUSE THEY ACTIVELY DON'T WANT TO.

Or, of course, it could prove me wrong. Maybe most people don't give a shit. Either way, it would resolve some long-running arguments. For me, at any rate.

I'd love to canvas for this, remember a few elections back (haven't seen them recently) when the "Vote For Nobody" campaign was going on? (Unfortunately I was too young to abstain.) "A vote for none of the above is a vote for common sense!" I could shout that through a megaphone.

Seriously, I think being able to register your dislike for the available options should be possible. It may also reduce the instances of people "voting for the BNP because it was in protest against the sitting MP"...

To be able to register a protest vote without voting for someone you don't actually like should be an inherent part of the democratic system.

11:08 / 13.08.02

I'm still not quite seeing the difference between this and spoiling. Wouldn't it be easier to change the law so that the number of spoiled ballot papers was announced?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:18 / 13.08.02

Well yeah, totally. It's just that spoiled ballot papers are "disqualified". If there was some provision for counting them...
I agree. There is very little difference between the two. But with computerised "reading" of ballot papers, one spoiled paper's gonna look totally different from another, whereas two for "none of the above" would/should be recognised as similar. (I mean, look at the States... us western "democracies" aren't too good at counting the ones that have been filled in PROPERLY... what chance does a "spoiled paper count" stand, realistically?)

11:39 / 13.08.02

Lurid - spoiling a paper can be passed off as vandalism rather than a deliberate political statement.

11:58 / 13.08.02

You think? Its a very tame and limited form of vandlism. I mean, you have to go to your polling station, identify yourself, get a ballot paper, take it into a corner, put a big cross on it and then put it in the box. It is pretty deliberate.

Really, I've always thought that spoiling was widely considered a protest against the system. Also, IIRC, the number of spoiled papers is counted in the UK and you get told by one of the Dimblebys if you stay up for it, though the election officer (?) doesn't announce it with the rest of the votes.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

12:58 / 13.08.02

It's a step in the right direction, but I'd be concerned about what a 'none of the above' ballot represents. If it's ignored and effectively put in a pile next to the 'spoiled' then it's worthless. If we had an election and 'none' got 2000 more than the leading candidate but that candidate still became MP or councillor or whatever then our time has just been wasted. And I don't think just a 'none' option is going to do much good. But a 'none' option and mandatory obligation to vote would be a good idea.