Hi, I am an active member of a political party in Australia, and I am normally the one standing out in the sun all day (occasional 10 min flash thunderstorm) , listening to abuse, and other concerns. One of the comments that I get a lot is, "Why bother, they are all the same", or "I am only voting because I have to". I even had someone say to me the equivalent of "How do I vote for Hillary Trump". To me its obvious that the voting public are disenfranchised with the whole political system, and no longer care about politics. Our political system in Australia is compulsory two party preferred, preferential voting (federally), which means if you vote for a independent, your vote normally goes to one of the major parties, so you might as well just vote for the major parties in the first place. So you really don't have a choice. Often in elections, you're given a choice between a socialist or a communist. What if you want freedom and liberty? At the moment we have the option of voting for Party A or Party B and you that is your choices. Shouldn't we have an option on the Ballot paper that says neither, or no representation? This is different to the optional voting that exists in America and other countries, where you are exercising your right not to vote, however what if you want to vote, but don't like your choices. From both sides of the isle, this is a valid option have. From the Democratic/leftist side, its undemocratic, not to have such an option as you should be able to vote for whoever you want. Also this stops the oppressors from gaining control over society (i.e the bourgeoisie), and allows the workers to be free. It also allows the worker to be able to govern themselves rather than allowing those evil corporations from oppressing the workers. From the Republican/libertarianism view point. It means less government, and more freedom given back to the people. It also means you have a choice between voting for Leftist 1, Marxist. What is your views on this idea?
Right now, people in the U.S. can see better than ever before why a "None of the Above" should be an option on ballots. When I lived in the U.S. it wasn't unusual to have only one person running for an office in a local election and I wanted an option of "None of the above." I can remember when the two main party candidates for governor of Louisiana were a convicted felon and a KKK nut. Bumper stickers said, "Vote for the Crook." Definitely, "None of the Above" is needed. Now, if None of the Above wins, what do you do? You do without till you have another election. If we put a muppet in the oval office and bureaucrats walked in and out pretending to consult life would go on as it should.
In many ways, the pathetic voter turnout we have represents the "none of the above" vote in the abstinence numbers. People who cannot be bothered to even participate are voting "none of the above". In the USA, it's a winner with no prize, every time.
Not voting isn't the same as "none of the above". For example, lets say you have a small electorate of 10 people, where 9 people don't vote (this condition exists where over 50% don't vote). Under optional voting rules, who ever that single person votes for will win the election. This doesn't mean that the other 9 people agree with that decision. I believe this is undemocratic. What I propose is for the other 9 people to be able to say on the ballot paper, not to be represented at all. I society can exist without government, you know.
I think it is an egregious violation of rights to require someone to vote. I was baffled when I saw that other countries, Australia included, had implemented compulsory voting. Hillary Trump for President! Or better yet-- no one for President, and we can get back to running our own lives.
That's the plan. The other thing is if the Majority of the individual electorates vote None of the Above, then we have no Prime Minister or President. The reason for this poll is to find out any objections really. I want to create a partition on Change.org to partition the government to allow us to vote for none of the above.
That would be awesome, and then restart the process with better candidates that we can actually get behind. But it's not gonna happen.
That’s only how it works if people think that’s how it works. An independent has exactly the same opportunity to gather enough votes to win (outright or on second preference) as any other candidate. The problem is that too many voters assume the same thing you have, that independents can’t win so they don’t bother voting for them. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The irony is that the preferential voting system is the best opportunity for non-establish candidates to win, if only they can get people to actually vote for them (as a first preference). There are lots of other problems with Independent and minor party candidates that tend to stifle them long before it gets to the actual polling (that’s really a different topic though). I’m somewhat in favour of a “None of the above” option in first-past-the-post elections but I’m not convinced it’s as relevant with preferential voting. The whole point of that system is that you don’t have to pick one candidate but also identify your “least worse” alternatives. That should mean divisive candidates are less likely to win due to votes being split between multiple opponents and candidates in general will be encouraged to have a wider scope of appeal. You could have a “None of the above” option as effectively another candidate under the preferential system, but it’d be even less likely to “win” as it would in first-past-the-post. I guess you could have a system of an alternative to voting for anyone at all but in reality I can’t see many people taking that option. In general I’ve always see this as more of a symbolic argument rather than any kind of real solution to problems in the democratic process. Only in the most extreme situations would a “none of the above” option actually have any significant impact.
I voted no. If I didn't want to vote for representation I'd simply not vote at all. What's the point of voting for no representation?
The problem is that staying home has exactly the OPPOSITE effect. Each vote nobody gets is one more vote the eventual winner doesn't have to offset, in effect not voting is a vote FOR everyone. Find one off party candidate NOBODY is voting for and vote for him, that way you're really saying "a pox on all your houses"
Not really, because the winner doesn't care why you didn't vote for him and won't lose a nanosecond worrying about it. I used to think you could send them some kind of message but they can't hear you and refuse to listen. The only thing that would work, but it'll never happen, is for a very high percentage of the electorate stayed home. If only 10-15 % got out to vote they might get the message.
