The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

[TimeSeeker]

One poster constantly straw-manning by demanding the mechanism by which those rights are guaranteed.

I responded that the judicial system is in place, and there is often a constitution that demarcates the limits of the state, and the concept of 'real democracy' can only bolster the notion our freedom is a necessary precondition to democracy, and serve as further arguments to present to the courts.

However I have to somehow come up with a guarantee that rights will not be stripped, which is nuts.

How this has anything to with the inclusion of NOTA on the ballot is something you have to ask him.

And for further readers, romanv continuously ignores the hard questions and only cares about idealized scenarios. I think (s)he just seeks validation that NOTA is a good idea, because (s)he sure can't handle criticism.

If a "real democracy" is a system where one cannot be stripped of their rights (romanv's own definition!), and the government is held to account by the judicial system, and the judicial system gains its authority from the constitution then what mechanism would prevent the constitution from being amended through voting which results in one being stripped of their rights?

Rights cannot be stripped in a real democracy.

One poster constantly straw-manning by demanding the mechanism by which those rights are guaranteed.

However I have to somehow come up with a guarantee that rights will not be stripped, which is nuts.

Straw-manning or destroying the argument? You decide

It is only logical to conclude that such a conception of "real democracy" is self-defeating and only exists in theory, but not in practice which makes NOTA a non-sequitur.

NOTA must be examined on its own merits based on the present-day system dynamics and democratic trends. One must ask - is NOTA going to increase or decrease voter apathy (which is a global trend and a more pertinent systemic risk to democracy). https://www.idea.int/sites/default/file ... -world.pdf

Crickets.

[surreptitious57]

If a real democracy is a system where one cannot be stripped of their rights and the government is held to account by the judicial
system and the judicial system gains its authority from the constitution then what mechanism would prevent the constitution from
being amended through voting which results in one being stripped of their rights ?

That would then be a dictatorship not a democracy and for it to happen the democracy would have to be very weak indeed
The solution to this [ though not guaranteed ] would be to have enough checks and balances in place to deny its possibility

[TimeSeeker]

That would then be a dictatorship not a democracy and for it to happen the democracy would have to be very weak indeed
The solution to this [ though not guaranteed ] would be to have enough checks and balances in place to deny its possibility

Democracy IS weak. As measured by voter apathy. People are losing faith in its adequacy.

[surreptitious57]

Democracy IS weak . As measured by voter apathy . People are losing faith in its adequacy

But is that because of democracy itself or the people ? Maybe the fault is with them or both them and the system
People must realise that no system is perfect and that is a universal truth regardless of what ever system is in use
Equally so their apathy is not actually doing anything to better the particular system that actually exists for them

[TimeSeeker]

But is that because of democracy itself or the people ? Maybe the fault is with them or both them and the system
People must realise that no system is perfect and that is a universal truth regardless of what ever system is in use
Equally so their apathy is not actually doing anything to better the particular system that actually exists for them

Correct. No system is perfect and much like the people must realize that no system is perfect, any system we build must take into account that humans are not perfect either. This is WHY we build systems in the first place - systems are tools which allow us to manage around our own, human deficiencies.

And so first and foremost we must agree and recognize that the system is BY the people and FOR the people! The system and the people complement each other. If the system harms the people, the system has failed to serve its PRIMARY FUNCTION which is to benefit/protect the people.

Just because people are apathetic does not mean the system should harm them in response.

Primum non nocere!

[surreptitious57]

Just because people are apathetic does not mean the system should harm them in response

Apathy can be dangerous as it may lead to those in power taking liberties over their people

[TimeSeeker]

Just because people are apathetic does not mean the system should harm them in response

Apathy can be dangerous as it may lead to those in power taking liberties over their people

Sure. But at least if no-vote means the same as NOTA, then we can never find ourselves in a scenario where a minority voter base successfully amends the constitution.

Do-nothing-by-default UNLESS majority vote.

And then we get to define "majority" however we wish. 66%, or 75% or 85%. Pick a number.

That (to me) seems more in line with "in a real democracy your rights cannot be stripped from you".

[henry quirk]

"I would disagree with the idea that people who don't vote be counted in a binding NOTA. NOTA exists to differentiate between those who abstain (for whatever reason) and those are not guaranteed a satisfactory outcome to an election."

I agree. I'd rather see NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot than simply have my not voting counted as NOTA. One, it's more satisfying to say 'fuck you' than to merely have that 'fuck you' assumed. Two, voting is active and choosing NOTA should be as well.

#

"Absolutely nothing stops you from using your pen to draw a new box on the ballot which says "NONE OF THE ABOVE". There - your NOTA vote has been SIGNALED unambiguously!"

Here, a great many elections, most in fact, use machines, not paper ballots. There's no option to deface the ballot. 

#

"Then we might as well put a tickbox that says "ABSTAIN" as well as one that says "NOTA"."

'Abstain' and 'none of the above' are not synonymous. The former sez 'I'm not voting' (so don't count my vote). The latter sez 'I formally deny my vote to any candidate (so count my vote). Makin' the two synonymous would require rejiggering people's understanding of abstention. Just addin' NOTA to the ballot would unambiguous and requires no rejiggering.

#

"voter apathy"

Here there's some of that, but mostly folks don't like pickin' between blue shit and red shit (cuz shit is shit). NOTA would give these folks the option of participating honestly instead of simply havin' to select the least offensive pile of manure, or not voting (meaning, they don't get their say).

 #

"change"

As I see it: NOTA isn't about change (or democracy). NOTA Is about me, a citizen, bein' able to formally reject all the candidates cynically foisted up by political machines, and havin' that rejection taken into account.

#

"if no-vote means the same as NOTA"

But that's the thing: the two are't currently synonymous. To make them so (beyond the legal aspect) means gettin' the public informed. With NOTA, there'd be less confusion, I think.

#

"so far you have given me no reason why an abstention can't be counted as NOTA."

Here you go...

NOTA  requires little public education to get. Redefining abstention to mean NOTA does.

Also: some folks don't wanna participate at all. They may view their abstention bein' counted as NOTA as a violation (bein' forced to participate).

And: NOTA is preferable cuz sometimes there's multiple elections goin' on simultaneously and a body wants to vote NOTA on some and for a candidate in others. Here, for example, we just had mid-terms. On the ballot: fed rep, police chief, mayor, and a smattering of others. I voted for a rep I support, but woulda liked to have voted NOTA in the mayoral and police chief races. Abstention as NOTA would bind me just as much as the current system.

#

"We are not arguing over the definitions/distinctions between abstention and voting now."

I am.

#

"Surely if 80% of people refuse to vote that means something!"

Currently: it means 20% percent of the people are vying to get a candidate elected and/or see a candidate denied office.

[Arising_uk]

They don't have one in Australia.

Ah! My apologies I was thinking of compulsory voting., whch I think you'd have to have if you gave a NOTA vote.

What would you do if the NOTA vote won?

Has what you hope for happened in France, Spain, Brazil etc?

[commonsense]

Thank you for posting. I sometimes wonder what planet I am on when answering the seemingly only other poster on this thread.

Roman,

You are right to say that Timeseeker is essentially the only other poster on this thread. Although I have barely posted, I have read every post and re-read many as well.

I am completely convinced that every one of your arguments is cogent and solid.

This is not to say that Timeseker’s posts were entirely without merit. I could understand Timeseeker’s position and recognize that there may be many who would take Timeseeker’s side.

Understanding and recognizing notwithstanding, I am in complete agreement with the necessity of having a real NOTA option on election ballots.

I could not respond to Timeseeker before you, as I am not in the Forum every day. Nor, in any instance, would I have argued as effectively as you.

[commonsense]

1. Also in a post-NOTA environment, big money may still invest in candidates if they would like to. However, since the ultimate objective of corporate donations is to gain influence after the election, the safest bet is to contribute to both candidates. Whoever wins will have received support from big money.
2. The objections raised in this thread are good predictors of what arguments will be raised IRL. These objections are understandable even if you disagree with them. And they are appropriately and deeply held. The pitch should address change and the current problems with voting before proposing NOTA as a solution. In fact, at least 2 other viable solutions should be presented and ruled-out before NOTA is presented in a White Paper or a meeting.

1. With NOTA, neither could win unless they pursued what was in the best interest of the majority. So big money would no longer be able to buy the results they want. It's impact would certainly be minimised as far as possible.
2. I have always done my best to respond to all arguments fairly. I outlined the reason why NOTA is essential in my first post. It changes the model of the election from 'lead, follow or get out of the way, into a democratic electoral model, where candidates need the consent of the majority to get elected.
Would you say that before providing adults with the ability to say 'No', we must show 2 other proposals that might work instead in any other situation? Surely it is up to those who don't want allow voters to say 'No' why their proposal is better, no the other way round.

Most likely, you already know that my post was neither (1) a counterargument nor (2) a critique. I add the following to clarify my inadequate communication above.

1. Big money donors don’t care who wins an election, as long as the winner is indebted to them. Hence candidates will receive (approximately) the same amount of financial support from big corporate donors. The source of discrepancy in money available for social media and TV would be smaller donors who tend to contribute only to one candidate and only if they want that candidate to win.

2. As I have not read a draft of your white paper, these comments were mere suggestions, not a critique.

I meant to suggest that you present 2 options and straw-man them out. They should be applicable to solving the current issue and not necessarily viable nor possible except that in the wildest imagination they could work.

For example, any of Timeseeker’s posts followed by your reply to the post could be used as a "possible" solution and defeated by your reply. Showing that other “possible” solutions won’t work adds strength to your argument that NOTA is the necessary solution to a real election problem,

Of course, as you did in your OP, it is best to start by showing your audience that you are talking about a very real and significant problem. Connecting the reasons why NOTA should be implemented with the problem itself would best be saved until other "possibilities" have been ruled out.

[romanv]

Thank you for posting. I sometimes wonder what planet I am on when answering the seemingly only other poster on this thread.

Roman,

You are right to say that Timeseeker is essentially the only other poster on this thread. Although I have barely posted, I have read every post and re-read many as well.

I am completely convinced that every one of your arguments is cogent and solid.

This is not to say that Timeseker’s posts were entirely without merit. I could understand Timeseeker’s position and recognize that there may be many who would take Timeseeker’s side.

Understanding and recognizing notwithstanding, I am in complete agreement with the necessity of having a real NOTA option on election ballots.

I could not respond to Timeseeker before you, as I am not in the Forum every day. Nor, in any instance, would I have argued as effectively as you.

Honestly, I have a very hard time understanding his points. I have just given up responding now, as we seem to be going around in circles.

Addition: he has selectively quoted me a couple of times in a way that completely changes the meaning of my post, so I suspect his motives, or at the very least he is arguing in bad faith.

[romanv]

[*]

1. Also in a post-NOTA environment, big money may still invest in candidates if they would like to. However, since the ultimate objective of corporate donations is to gain influence after the election, the safest bet is to contribute to both candidates. Whoever wins will have received support from big money.
2. The objections raised in this thread are good predictors of what arguments will be raised IRL. These objections are understandable even if you disagree with them. And they are appropriately and deeply held. The pitch should address change and the current problems with voting before proposing NOTA as a solution. In fact, at least 2 other viable solutions should be presented and ruled-out before NOTA is presented in a White Paper or a meeting.

1. With NOTA, neither could win unless they pursued what was in the best interest of the majority. So big money would no longer be able to buy the results they want. It's impact would certainly be minimised as far as possible.
2. I have always done my best to respond to all arguments fairly. I outlined the reason why NOTA is essential in my first post. It changes the model of the election from 'lead, follow or get out of the way, into a democratic electoral model, where candidates need the consent of the majority to get elected.
Would you say that before providing adults with the ability to say 'No', we must show 2 other proposals that might work instead in any other situation? Surely it is up to those who don't want allow voters to say 'No' why their proposal is better, no the other way round.

Most likely, you already know that my post was neither (1) a counterargument nor (2) a critique. I add the following to clarify my inadequate communication above.

1. Big money donors don’t care who wins an election, as long as the winner is indebted to them. Hence candidates will receive (approximately) the same amount of financial support from big corporate donors. The source of discrepancy in money available for social media and TV would be smaller donors who tend to contribute only to one candidate and only if they want that candidate to win.

2. As I have not read a draft of your white paper, these comments were mere suggestions, not a critique.

I meant to suggest that you present 2 options and straw-man them out. They should be applicable to solving the current issue and not necessarily viable nor possible except that in the wildest imagination they could work.

For example, any of Timeseeker’s posts followed by your reply to the post could be used as a "possible" solution and defeated by your reply. Showing that other “possible” solutions won’t work adds strength to your argument that NOTA is the necessary solution to a real election problem,

Of course, as you did in your OP, it is best to start by showing your audience that you are talking about a very real and significant problem. Connecting the reasons why NOTA should be implemented with the problem itself would best be saved until other "possibilities" have been ruled out.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I understand you better now.

I can always use feed back and constructive criticism, no one's can be perfect. I will think about the points you raise.

An example of change is that previously I thought NOTA should win asa plurality, but someone pointed out that was unfair to the majority who had in fact voted for someone, and I realised he was right.

Now our proposal conceptually consistent and will lead to better results imo.

The WP is nearly finished, I am just adding in the graphics now. Once ready I will post a link here. I hope some people will be interested in it.

[TimeSeeker]

Honestly, I have a very hard time understanding his points. I have just given up responding now, as we seem to be going around in circles.

Then let me simplify it for you (I can draw you a picture next).

Democracy ( Status Quo )

No NOTA, abstentions carry no weight

Ballot options: A, B
Electorate size: 8000 voters
Votes:
* Party A -> 2000
* Party B -> 2600
* Spoiled votes -> 400
* Abstentions -> 3000

Election Outcome: Party B wins with 2600 votes (32.5% of the electorate, 52% of votes counted)
Effect in practice: 2600 people have power over the other 5400.

Democracy ( romanv )

NOTA exists on ballot. Abstentions carry no weight.

Ballot options: A, B, NOTA
Electorate size: 8000 voters
Votes:
* Party A -> 2000
* Party B -> 2600
* NOTA -> 400
* Abstentions -> 3000

Election Outcome: Party B wins with 2600 votes (32.5% of the electorate, 52% of votes counted)
Effect in practice: 2600 people have power over the other 5400.

Democracy ( TimeSeeker )

NOTA exists on ballot. Abstentions counted as NOTA.

Ballot options: A, B, NOTA
Electorate size: 8000 voters
Votes:
* Party A -> 2000
* Party B -> 2600
* NOTA -> 400
* Abstentions (NOTA) -> 3000

Election Outcome: NOTA with 3400 votes ( 42,5% of the electorate, 8% of votes counted)
Effect in practice: Nobody has power.

Which one is "better"? I have no idea how you measure "democratic betterness".

[Arising_uk]

Which is why I think you'd have to have compulsory voting and then some optiins could be that if the NOTA vote won there is a re-election and govt supended until or party's have to form a coiltion interim until rerun, etc.