Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

Original poster

Am I being unreasonable to request that all ballot papers contain a box for "none of the above"?

25 replies

Lucia39 · 22/05/2009 17:12

I firmly believe in voting and always exercise my franchise. However, I only vote when a a Green candidate is standing - not very often unfortunately.

So why can't ballot papers contain an option for those of us who don't want to vote for the candidates standing in our constituencies? That way the opinion of people like me who have no faith in any of the larger parties could at least have our views recorded. At the moment all I can do is "spoil" my paper!

OP posts:

choufleur · 22/05/2009 18:28

No. i will be spoiling my ballot paper for the european elections as i don't want to vote for any candidates. i don't think any are worthy of my vote.

dizietsma · 22/05/2009 18:29

Think it's a great idea. If none of the above get the majority of votes, then that should trigger another election, with different candidates too.

TheFallenMadonna · 22/05/2009 18:31

Someone will have to do the job. And it will be the person with the highest number of votes. None of the above - that would be unworkable. Why not stand yourself? It is very easy, perticularly in local elections, and then you would be able to actually exercise your right to vote in a positive way.

TheFallenMadonna · 22/05/2009 18:32

That would be particularly...

And where would these other candidates come from? Why aren't they standing already? And who would pay for the extra elections? They don't come cheap.

theDreadPirateRoberts · 22/05/2009 18:34

YANBU - what's the point? If there's no green candidate, stand yourself!

theDreadPirateRoberts · 22/05/2009 18:35

Bugger, that should be a big YABU. I loathe wasted votes.

Original poster

Lucia39 · 22/05/2009 18:54

Re standing in elections - been there, done that, and got the T.shirt [many moons ago]! The Green Party, being a small political party, tends to put up candidates only in larger urban areas or at Euro elections. So unless I was prepared to completely fund myself it wouldn't be feasible. I take your point though!

I just wonder if those of the electorate who do feel as I do did have their votes counted by such a method as the one outlined it might make the larger parties realise that there are disgruntled and disillusioned voters out there.

OP posts:

HecatesTwopenceworth · 22/05/2009 18:57

I agree with you. There should be an option to abstain, to record that you are not prepared to choose any of the options presented to you.

It would certainly be interesting to know how many people don't vote because they can't be arsed and how many don't vote because there isn't a suitable choice for them.

onagar · 22/05/2009 19:04

"that should be a big YABU. I loathe wasted votes."

theDreadPirateRoberts is right. If you don't want to vote for the main parties you should vote for the BNP just so as not to waste the vote. That is what you meant theDreadPirateRoberts isn't it?

To the OP yes there should be such an option to signal that you were ready to vote, but found only candidates you disapproved of.

dizietsma · 22/05/2009 19:17

"And where would these other candidates come from?"

Local party selects another candidate.

"Why aren't they standing already?"

What an odd question. Um, because the party chose another candidate...? If none of the above won, then that would mean the local parties got their selections wrong and need to reconnect with the desires and needs of the constituents.

"And who would pay for the extra elections? They don't come cheap."

I'm a bit old fashioned this way. I think true representative democracy is worth every penny spent on it. Nothing is more important. I understand that you may think not "wasting" money is important, but IMO actual democracy is more important than money.

Portofino · 22/05/2009 19:23

Onager, I don't think that was exactly what DP meant.

I've never actually thought about this before, but I think I tend to agree with the OP. If there is no-one standing that I feel represents my views, I shouldn't just have to pick the least worst one.

dizietsma · 22/05/2009 19:23

We actually have a very simple, hence cheap electoral process compared to pretty much any other democracy.

Run-offs are very common in other, more representative, democracies and are essentially extra elections.

The chances of a "none of the above" vote winning a majority would be so small, and only really occur in constituencies where the candidates are all corrupt. In that instance, I think it's absolutely fair to let the voters make their point about not wanting to vote for any of them.

dizietsma · 22/05/2009 19:25

I also think it would be very useful as an acid test of how out of touch politics and politicians are with the people they represent to see the total national percentage of "none of the above" votes.

pooter · 22/05/2009 19:28

ah, ala Brewsters Millions - great film! I totally agree with you. And i now want to rent the film again.

Nighbynight · 22/05/2009 19:29

A "none of the above" box is about the only thing that would get me out to vote in the UK.

Or a box for "kick out the aristocracy and the royal family and found a republic"

dizietsma · 22/05/2009 19:31

LOL

onagar · 22/05/2009 19:37

Portofino, I don't really think she did mean that. I was just picking the worst example to make the point that not voting can be the responsible thing to do.

It's amazing that it's come to this. That we got to the point where we can't find anyone to vote for.

I'd like to see two extra options on the ballot. One could be simply 'none of the above' but one could be "I want a public debate for a new system"

theDreadPirateRoberts · 22/05/2009 19:38

Well, how about voting for the least-worst of the current candidates, and writing to them (and the paper) saying that they weren't the candidate that you wanted to vote for, but because of x and y...

Participatory democracy anyone?

TheFallenMadonna · 22/05/2009 19:46

See, this idea of 'politicians' as a breed apart is why I think this is such a bad idea. It is not enough to say "no, not good enough, try again" - as though only one group of people are involved in the electoral process. Historically, when people have not like what is on offer they have changed things by engaging with the process, not by standing even further back. It costs nothing to stand for a lcoal election. All you need is 10 signatures. People often stand as independents, if they don't like what is on offer. And then you would have someone to vote for.

And in term of local elections, it isn't at all an odd question to ask who else could stand. Expecially for smaller parties, people aren't queuing up to stand at all.

dizietsma · 22/05/2009 20:41

"All you need is 10 signatures. People often stand as independents, if they don't like what is on offer. And then you would have someone to vote for."

Well, in theory, I agree with you. But how many independant councillors are there in the whole UK? Hardly any, because councillors are mostly voted for on the basis of which party they belong to.

It's emblematic of the general democratic malaise in the UK. No-one votes for the smaller parties or independants because we all understand our wholly unrepresentative first past the post system means that the chances of them getting in are very low, so our vote for smaller parties and independants will be worthless. So we vote for the party we dislike the least which has a chance of getting into power.

You talk about people standing up and getting involved in politics if they don't like what they see, but the fact is that our system of "trustee democracy" actively discourages the populus from getting involved. You are meant to pick a candidate, give them your vote and trust that they'll do what they say. In between elections, it's very unlikely that any constituent will get their politician to listen to their cause unless it becomes a major national issue on the news, or is something that politician already agrees with you on. What then? Join a party and hope you can change the system from within? Fat bloody chance.

In the Scottish Parliament MSPs are voted in by the additional members system and you see a much greater diversity of parties and opinions represented. I think this kind of system (although not necessarily this specific one, I meant PR in general), is how our government should be designed.

TheFallenMadonna · 22/05/2009 20:51

Well, I'm not going to disagree with you on PR.

Our council BTW has nearly 10% independent councillors. I've lived in a ward that returned one. So not as unusual as all that. And if you stand without a chance of winning you have voted. So much better than a spoilt ballot paper. I stood once, without any real campaigning in a local election. I did so for the reasons I have outlined. If I hadn't, the incumbant would have been returned unopposed. I damn near won - which would have been a bit of a shock. It did however give the incumbant a hefty kick up the backside when she realised how unpopular she had become. So, so much more effective than merely spoiling my ballot paper. And all it needed was 10 signatures.

And yes, I make no apologies for thinking that more people should actively engage in politics. I think the idea of politicians as a breed apart is, as I said before, hugely damaging.

I feel quite strongly about this - but I do put my nomination where my mouth is

theDreadPirateRoberts · 22/05/2009 20:56

dizietsma · 22/05/2009 21:13

"Our council BTW has nearly 10% independent councillors."

That's great, but hardly common. Certainly not reflected in the House of Commons.

I think what you did was great, and I'm glad your local councillor got a kick up the arse, have things changed significantly since then?

"So, so much more effective than merely spoiling my ballot paper"

Well, yes, but "none of the above" wouldn't be a spoiled paper. It's an official register of the fact that someone voted, and didn't like what they were presented with. Spoiled papers are not counted as votes are they?

"And yes, I make no apologies for thinking that more people should actively engage in politics."

And you shouldn't, I do agree with you on that one, wholeheartedly. I just happen to think that due to our awful systems of election and accountability it takes a major effort for an individual to make a difference, or even have their voices heard by those in power. What you did may not seem to be a big deal to you, but to the large majority of the population it really is.

"I think the idea of politicians as a breed apart is, as I said before, hugely damaging."

I'm not sure how you got the impression that I feel they are. I don't, I do think that they think they are though, IYSWIM.

dancingqueeen · 22/05/2009 23:12

apparently, according to my 'staunch party member' friend, all spoilt papers have to be reviewed by a representative from each party. so actually it's not a bad way of ensuring that someone hears your view.....

dizietsma · 23/05/2009 11:20

"apparently, according to my 'staunch party member' friend, all spoilt papers have to be reviewed by a representative from each party. so actually it's not a bad way of ensuring that someone hears your view"

Ha! Really? That's interesting, but still isn't an official tally.

Peter Snow will not be counting the "none of the above" votes with his silly graphics. Actual figures of the disaffected voters will not be collated, so they will be ignored. I think with voter turnout being so dreadfully low in the UK, just getting an idea of the percentage of people who would turn out to vote if they were presented with better options would be a good starting point for reforms.

Flip