What about 'None of the above'?
Jul. 8th, 2012 11:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nairiporterSay you are the head of government of your country. Now there is a group of political activists who claim to be representing the "silent majority" of moderate people, who are independent as far as political affiliations go. You realise they are potentially the difference between winning an election and losing an election.
Now, they are petitioning you to add an option to future ballots, saying 'None of the Above', so that when a voter feels they do not necessarily approve of any of the candidates because those fail to represent their political views, they could put a cross on the 'Neither' option and be done with it.
Well of course if the 'None' option wins a majority on the election, this would require a new election with other candidates, wouldn't it? Which could get a bit costly. And this is the counter argument against this idea.
One side says that when you are voting and all the options suck, you shouldn't be compelled to hold your nose and vote for the 'lesser evil' among two or more. And adding 'None of the Above' to the ballot would ensure that people have a real say at all times, even if sometimes that choice is to reject all the options they have been presented with.
The other side says there is no sense in all this. Those who want to run for office have already been put on the ballot, and if none of the presented options suits the voter, they better ignore the whole thing. One could go even further and suggest that the number of options should be limited even more, not expanded. By tightening the census criteria on who could run for office, to make sure that only the 'proper' sort of people with political and life experience would have access to the positions of power. In addition, that might eliminate some costly extra expenses like runoff elections, etc.
Which side of this debate are you on, and why? Or are you in the middle, i.e. on the 'None of the Above' side? ;-)
Now, they are petitioning you to add an option to future ballots, saying 'None of the Above', so that when a voter feels they do not necessarily approve of any of the candidates because those fail to represent their political views, they could put a cross on the 'Neither' option and be done with it.
Well of course if the 'None' option wins a majority on the election, this would require a new election with other candidates, wouldn't it? Which could get a bit costly. And this is the counter argument against this idea.
One side says that when you are voting and all the options suck, you shouldn't be compelled to hold your nose and vote for the 'lesser evil' among two or more. And adding 'None of the Above' to the ballot would ensure that people have a real say at all times, even if sometimes that choice is to reject all the options they have been presented with.
The other side says there is no sense in all this. Those who want to run for office have already been put on the ballot, and if none of the presented options suits the voter, they better ignore the whole thing. One could go even further and suggest that the number of options should be limited even more, not expanded. By tightening the census criteria on who could run for office, to make sure that only the 'proper' sort of people with political and life experience would have access to the positions of power. In addition, that might eliminate some costly extra expenses like runoff elections, etc.
Which side of this debate are you on, and why? Or are you in the middle, i.e. on the 'None of the Above' side? ;-)
