PDA

View Full Version : Vote...None Of The Above.


SilsoeSid
1st May 2005, 02:02
http://www.omrlp.com/

http://omrlp.brinkster.net/images/election2005campaign/NoneOfTheAbove.jpg

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party proudly presents its last big policy announcement of the General Election campaign. Our founder and Spiritual Leader, Screaming Lord Sutch, always campaigned for fairness in British Politics - he was one of the first to call for votes at 18, and in the coming Parliament we will be campaigning for candidates to be able to stand for election at 18 (at the moment it is, ridiculously, 21).

For years, the Official Monster Raving Loony Party has been the only safe way of registering a protest vote, other than not turning up on Polling Day. But (strange as it may seem) we think voter turnout is a really serious issue, and that if things carry on the way they're going, low turnouts will do some real damage. We therefore propose that a Loony government would introduce a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper in order for people to say "I don't like any of the options available to me" and give the disenfranchised a voice.

If "none of the above" were to win a ballot, the election would be re-run, and all defeated candidates prevented from standing in the re-run. They would, however, be given a badge with the words "I'm not even the best of a bad lot" on it.

So, while the option isn't there on the ballot paper, if you want to vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE", then vote
Official Monster Raving Loony.

We will continue to campaign for the "none of the above" option until we get it.

http://omrlp.brinkster.net/Images/loonyshieldcmyk.jpg

SS,
(pending Shadow Minister for Sandwiches With The Crusts Cut Off And Cut into Triangles.)

allan907
1st May 2005, 03:16
What a brilliant idea! My prediction is that it will, eventually, be adopted by all truly democratic nations.......I hope.

None of the above
1st May 2005, 09:23
Thank you for your support, Gentlemen.

N o t a

Edited to add:

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments has ruled that parties which call themselves "None of the sbove" will be banned to ensure that the words don't appear on the ballot paper.
(The Independent 18th March 2005)

That's another cunning plan foiled then.

Whirlygig
1st May 2005, 09:37
Similar to having a "No Confidence" option in the Single Transferable Vote method of proportional representation (as run by the Students' Union).

My Great-Grandmother chained herself to railings so I could vote so I never ever don't vote. However, once I did feel compelled to neatly write accross the ballot paper "No confidence in any candidate".

So, SS, I agree - the option should be available - it does at least distinguish between those who are too apathetic to get off their backsides and walk to the village hall and those who do care but just have no faith in any candidate.

Cheers

Whirlygig

UniFoxOs
1st May 2005, 11:04
I think I will start a party called "None of the above". I bet I get in with a landslide victory!!

SilsoeSid
1st May 2005, 12:29
UniFoxOs;

I'm sure that you are on to a good idea, as long as your 'none of the above' box wasn't above the 'none of the above box'. This is because there would always be a 'none of the above box' at the bottom of the nominees list.

Along this train of thought, perhaps even a 'spoilt paper' party would get enough to gain a few seats!

SS,
(pending Shadow Minister for Sandwiches With The Crusts Cut Off And Cut into Triangles.)

BombayDuck
1st May 2005, 13:55
Its closer than you think.... there was a serious debate out here last year before the general elections (not a typo!) to introduce a "None of the Above" choice in the ballot sheets....

However, the evil politicians scuttled that plan....

Wonder Why :suspect:

airship
1st May 2005, 14:06
In order to avoid the disruptions and dangers of "protest" votes (witness the last French presidential election when the extreme right-winger Le Pen ousted Lionel Jospin in the 1st round), having a box "but prefer none of the above" which one could tick in addition to, may be a step up for democracy. The results would be announced "with" and "without" these "additional" votes. In order to avoid all those needlessly wasted "protest" votes. And serve as warning to those elected that their mandate to govern is less clear than might otherwise be the case... :8

Former Secretary of State James Baker once said, "Someone asked me what was the most important thing I had learned since being in Washington. I replied that it was the fact that temporal power is fleeting." Baker went on to observe that once driving through the White House gates he saw a man walking alone on Pennsylvania Avenue and recognized him as having been Secretary of State in a previous administration. "There he was alone - no reporters, no security, no adoring public, no trappings of power. Just one solitary man alone with his thoughts. And that mental picture continually serves to remind me of the impermanence of power and the impermanence of place."

Onan the Clumsy
1st May 2005, 14:13
Exactly what I've been saying for years now. Make voting compulsory and include a none of the above vote. Anyone getting less than a certain percentage is then not allowed to be a candidate for any election for a set period of time.


I have been told that Australia has somethign similar and, If I understand correctly, Nevada has a NOTA box to check. In fact I think the NOTA selection almost won a few years back.



Why should votes be integer though? I think you should be allowed to vote AGAINST someone as much as for them. Consider Louisianna when Edwards (convicted felon) ran against Duke (menber of the KKK) Who would you vote for? If you really don't like felons being in office, you have to vote "for" the KKK. Likewise you might have to vote for a felon to stop a racist seizing power. Why not allow a vote against? That way, when the numbers were counted, instead of the winner saying "I won, I have a mandate", the world would get to see what the electorate really thought of the candidates and the depth of their powerbase would be obvious..


Also, why not have say 100 votes and you can didtribute them as you like? After all, you often like several planks of one candidate's platform, but still prefer another candidate. This way you could split you vote to coincide with your desires.

(althought the electorate are probably too stupid for this to work)

airship
1st May 2005, 14:51
(althought the electorate are probably too stupid for this to work) Present company excluded obviously...?! :p

patdavies
1st May 2005, 15:13
Try reading Nevile Shute's 'In the Wet'

I have always thought that the voting system described therein to be close to ideal.

Effectively, you have 1 vote simply because your are of voting age and breathing. Others are awarded via various qualifications like miltary service (or equivalent) having a degree etc. etc. up to six votes in toto. The seventh vote is in the gift of the soveriegn

acbus1
1st May 2005, 15:24
........the world would get to see what the electorate really thought of the candidates and the depth of their powerbase would be obvious..
Shall I explain why it'll never happen?

The clue is in the quote.

Whilst the lunatics are in charge of the asylum, transparency (or do I mean opacity?) and fair play will never happen.

:(

.......even if it's discussed on Proon. :rolleyes::}

Gorgophone
4th May 2005, 10:16
The word 'democracy' appears several times in this thread.

Professor of Politics and consultant to organizations such as the UN, the Council of Europe and the Department for International Development David Beetham will be asking, ‘Is democracy the loser in the 2005 election?’ on Wednesday 4th May at Borders Oxford at 7pm.

Beetham will be discussing the state of British democracy the evening before less than 50% of the population are expected to vote in the 2005 election. In his latest book, DEMOCRACY: A BEGINNER’S GUIDE, published by Oxford publisher Oneworld Publications, he offers a ‘citizen’s guide’ to democracy, exploring how it should – and does – work in practice and why so many citizens are disillusioned with the democratic process. The work is the fruit of more than two decades of teaching about democracy to students, practitioners and activists, and features discussion of such key issues as the ways in which money compromises the democratic process and the ‘export’ of democracy. Beetham concludes with an exhortation to all to ‘get active’ in the democratic process, and certainly never to pass on any opportunity to vote!

The event is FREE. More information on the book can be found at http://www.oneworld-publications.com/books/democracy.htm or from [email protected]

DEMOCRACY: A BEGINNER’S GUIDE by David Beetham is published by Oneworld Publications in paperback on May 20th, priced £9.99.



---------------------------------------------------------------

Oneworld Publications

Oxford

OX2 7AR

England

Tel: +44 (0) 1865 310597

Fax: +44 (0) 1865 310598

[email protected]

tony draper
4th May 2005, 11:22
Britain is not a democracy, its a constitutional Monarchy, only we don't have a constitution.
:rolleyes:
I think we should do away with Parliament and elections and just have a CEO with draconian powers, his first act to order all politicians and their fellow travelers outside and shot.
:cool:

bear11
4th May 2005, 12:33
Don't mind the Monster Raving copycats: way ahead of you, boys - see the below link.

http://www.noneoftheabove.ie/

to explain, Irish people have been spoiling their votes for years, and in the last 5-10, many voted for "Dustin the Turkey" on their ballot paper rather than scrawling incoherently on it (Dustin is a daytime kids TV puppet character - and I mean character, he's had amongst other things 8 number 1 singles and 3 number 1 albums). In the past 2 years, the Irish government tried to bring in electronic voting, but managed to completely bollix it up by spending a fortune on a system that doesn't work. In anticipation of the introduction, the above site was created to allow an electronic version of Dustin.

SilsoeSid
4th May 2005, 13:37
Don't mind the Monster Raving copycats: way ahead of you, boys - see the below link.
With respect bear, your link leads to a petition site.
All that can happen is that the result is handed to the Minister of the Environment and Local Government, (Mr. Dick Roche TD).
He can then do what he wishes with the petition, probably nothing.

The OMRLP has this 'none of the above' policy as part of it's 2005 Manifesto and therefore a Loony government would introduce a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper.

As for ACTUALLY doing something about this issue, if you read the first post, you will see the following, "For years, the Official Monster Raving Loony Party has been the only safe way of registering a protest vote, other than not turning up on Polling Day. "

So as for 'copycat ideas' as you put it, a petition is one thing, but doing something about it by putting a candidate forward to enable the electorate to register a 'none of the other partys' vote, is another.

In summeryhttp://www.findjeux.net/jeux/forum/smiley/sun.gif ;

1. bears petition, still being compiled today.
2. OMRLP since 1963.

Who is copying who?..........You decide!



Don't forget to vote tomorrow, 7am - 10pm,

SS,
(pending Shadow Minister for Sandwiches With The Crusts Cut Off And Cut into Triangles.)

http://omrlp.brinkster.net/Images/loonyshieldcmyk.jpg