The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:36 am
Please critique.
Background: I advocate for a 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option to be on the ballot based on it being a prerequisite for democratic elections.
Definition of genuine representative democracy: The adherence to popular sovereignty, by which we mean, the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives.
This is ‘real democracy’.
If that is the case then a democratic electoral model must allow people to withhold their consent, as otherwise obviously is not possible to give consent.
This is the function of NOTA. It allows people to withhold their consent for an election can declare a winner, and if over 50% choose this option in an electorate, e.g. MP constituency, that electorate can be said to have withheld their consent, so the election cannot declare a winner and must be re-run.
In the meantime, the seat remains empty and automatically registers as a ‘No’ vote for any proposed legislation as that is a true reflection of their will.
This is the conceptual framework that the reform is based upon.
Currently the electoral model can be summed up as ‘lead, follow, or get out of the way’. It is anti-democratic, and tends to authoritarianism with an out of touch political elite who have far too much room to pursue their own petty agendas, or sell the voting public out to wealthy donors.
This fault can only be remedied by a NOTA option.
What is the benefit of a ‘real democracy’?
If the NOTA option is implemented following the tenets of real democracy, it will lead to the maximization of the common good (policies, decisions, and actions by the state that are beneficial to most or all members of that nation).
How would one know if the common good has been maximized?
Voters have to live with the consequences of their decisions, therefore only they can be the final arbiters of the common good.
They will make choices that will be of benefit to them, and discard choices that make them worse off. Therefore, over time, they themselves will be able to steer society to a point where the common good has been maximized, if – and only if- they have the power.
NOTA provides that power.
How?
The NOTA option becomes a powerful voting bloc encompassing voters from all political stripes. It serves to unite all those who are dissatisfied, and ensures only a candidate with the consent of the majority can enter parliament.
This characteristic opens the path to the maximisation of the common good as candidates must constantly compete to keep people out of the NOTA bloc, and keep serving the voters who are not in the NOTA bloc, this pressure inevitably results in the maximisation of the common good in the long run.
NOTA is not just for people who don’t have anyone to vote for, its use extends much further.
It is also for voters who are voting for the least of several evils, voters who political party has no chance of winning, or is uncertain to win, people who have a preferred candidate or political party, but some aspect of either the candidate, or policy platform is unacceptable to them.
In fact, unless an election can guarantee a winner acceptable to the voter, then that voter can and arguably should choose NOTA until their conditions are met, as only then can the state be a reflection of their will, as it should in a real democracy.
Currently we have an elected oligarchy who bend the state to their will; we elect rulers, not representatives.
NOTA puts a stop to all that.
The inclusion of NOTA also prevents the use of negative campaigning as a tactic, as all negative campaigning will do is increase the share of the NOTA vote, so there no longer any tactical advantage in it.
It also removes money from politics, and the so the candidates who enter politics for financial gain, as once voters have veto power, money cannot buy results, and so will leave politics of its own accord and the voter will become truly sovereign.
The true power of NOTA is that it opens the political sphere to people who have talent and integrity who want to truly represent the voting public, but at the moment are not able to deal with the vicious and theatrical nature of the political environment. It takes the politics out of politics, and ensures it will only be focused on real issues that are of concern to the voting public.
Thanks for reading, please let me know what you think, especially is there anything unclear, or if you see a flaw in the reasoning, or anything at all really.
I have a co-authored a white paper on the topic and this is an extremely condensed version of it, much has been left out, but hopefully the salient points remain.
Background: I advocate for a 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option to be on the ballot based on it being a prerequisite for democratic elections.
Definition of genuine representative democracy: The adherence to popular sovereignty, by which we mean, the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives.
This is ‘real democracy’.
If that is the case then a democratic electoral model must allow people to withhold their consent, as otherwise obviously is not possible to give consent.
This is the function of NOTA. It allows people to withhold their consent for an election can declare a winner, and if over 50% choose this option in an electorate, e.g. MP constituency, that electorate can be said to have withheld their consent, so the election cannot declare a winner and must be re-run.
In the meantime, the seat remains empty and automatically registers as a ‘No’ vote for any proposed legislation as that is a true reflection of their will.
This is the conceptual framework that the reform is based upon.
Currently the electoral model can be summed up as ‘lead, follow, or get out of the way’. It is anti-democratic, and tends to authoritarianism with an out of touch political elite who have far too much room to pursue their own petty agendas, or sell the voting public out to wealthy donors.
This fault can only be remedied by a NOTA option.
What is the benefit of a ‘real democracy’?
If the NOTA option is implemented following the tenets of real democracy, it will lead to the maximization of the common good (policies, decisions, and actions by the state that are beneficial to most or all members of that nation).
How would one know if the common good has been maximized?
Voters have to live with the consequences of their decisions, therefore only they can be the final arbiters of the common good.
They will make choices that will be of benefit to them, and discard choices that make them worse off. Therefore, over time, they themselves will be able to steer society to a point where the common good has been maximized, if – and only if- they have the power.
NOTA provides that power.
How?
The NOTA option becomes a powerful voting bloc encompassing voters from all political stripes. It serves to unite all those who are dissatisfied, and ensures only a candidate with the consent of the majority can enter parliament.
This characteristic opens the path to the maximisation of the common good as candidates must constantly compete to keep people out of the NOTA bloc, and keep serving the voters who are not in the NOTA bloc, this pressure inevitably results in the maximisation of the common good in the long run.
NOTA is not just for people who don’t have anyone to vote for, its use extends much further.
It is also for voters who are voting for the least of several evils, voters who political party has no chance of winning, or is uncertain to win, people who have a preferred candidate or political party, but some aspect of either the candidate, or policy platform is unacceptable to them.
In fact, unless an election can guarantee a winner acceptable to the voter, then that voter can and arguably should choose NOTA until their conditions are met, as only then can the state be a reflection of their will, as it should in a real democracy.
Currently we have an elected oligarchy who bend the state to their will; we elect rulers, not representatives.
NOTA puts a stop to all that.
The inclusion of NOTA also prevents the use of negative campaigning as a tactic, as all negative campaigning will do is increase the share of the NOTA vote, so there no longer any tactical advantage in it.
It also removes money from politics, and the so the candidates who enter politics for financial gain, as once voters have veto power, money cannot buy results, and so will leave politics of its own accord and the voter will become truly sovereign.
The true power of NOTA is that it opens the political sphere to people who have talent and integrity who want to truly represent the voting public, but at the moment are not able to deal with the vicious and theatrical nature of the political environment. It takes the politics out of politics, and ensures it will only be focused on real issues that are of concern to the voting public.
Thanks for reading, please let me know what you think, especially is there anything unclear, or if you see a flaw in the reasoning, or anything at all really.
I have a co-authored a white paper on the topic and this is an extremely condensed version of it, much has been left out, but hopefully the salient points remain.