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

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:29 pm

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:28 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:28 am
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:46 am
As I said the conceptual framework of democracy precludes your individual sovereignty being infringed upon. The mechanism of enforcing your individual sovereignty ultimately rests on the judicial system, just as it does now.

Pointing out that the conceptual framework of democracy acts as further protection to the rights you already enjoy in the constitution is no bad thing, no matter how you try and twist everything.
Your conceptual idea is nothing but good intentions.

Reality doesn't care about good intentions. Either it works or it doesn't work IN PRACTICE.

And so if your good intentions lead to catastrophic systematic collapse - then it was a crap idea! Irrespective of your intentions.
I've reached the end of my patience with you.

Its not my conceptual framework, its the universally accepted framework for democracy on this entire planet; however, it requires a NOTA box to make that a reality.

That's it, all the hard work has been done. The massively complex systems to make democracy are already in place. The NOTA option just makes them all work for EVERYONE. Now the system can no longer be gamed.

Whether you agree with the conceptual framework that justifies the NOTA option is irrelevant. Just focus on its practical application.

How it works in practice is you go to the voting booth and if the election does not guarantee an outcome you find acceptable, you tick the NOTA box, and if enough people think like you, you get a new election.

Straight forward.
Isn't this what I said?

NOTA is an option to PREVENT change, not DRIVE change

So if we hold an election/referendum to sign the Kyoto protocol or the Paris Agreement and the electorate likes neither option they tick NOTA.

And we (society) do nothing about global warming. Then we go and celebrate the effectiveness of democracy!
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

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

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:35 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:27 pm
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:22 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:52 am


This is why pragmatism trumps idealism every single time and why I myself am one : because it works
Idealism is very well meaning but unless it leads to actual change then it is in practical terms useless

I have no intention of changing the world as that is beyond me [ and indeed everyone else too ]
Consequently I only focus my energy on what I can change [ me ] and just ignore anything else
The point of NOTA is that it increases what you can change. A lot of people give up on politics as its just too damn hard to make a difference by voting. NOTA removes that barrier. You go tick a box that rejects all on offer and suddenly you can affect change, whereas before you had to stand for election or go on endless protests, write letters, or as a lot of people do, just give up on it all.

Imagine you are an employer, perhaps you are, a number of agencies sent you a candidates to fill a vacancy, and you had to pick one, you could not reject them all, as none are suitable. And if you tried, they claim say 'oh you are just being negative' or 'its impractical'.

They are obviously gas lighting you.

You would not accept such a situation as an employer, as you know you are being scammed. Why accept the same in election?

Don't get caught up in the conceptual framework, look at it on the practical level. You just have to tick a box. Its just one more box on the ballot that makes the difference to whether you have power or you don't.
So we already have the mechanism? A spoiled vote.
What we lack is the policy where if 50% of votes in an election are spoiled then a re-election is required, whereas currently spoiled votes are simply discarded e.g carry no weight.

So NOTA is not about affecting change. It is about PREVENTING change.
A spoilt vote registers as an abstention, and there is no formal consequence to spoiling your ballot, and all spoilt ballots are lumped together, including those spoilt in error. And why should defacing a ballot be required to register dissatisfaction, this is clear disenfranchisement. There should be an option on the ballot to withhold consent, and a democratically valid consequence for that choice.
Last edited by romanv on Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

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

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:35 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:29 pm
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:28 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:28 am

Your conceptual idea is nothing but good intentions.

Reality doesn't care about good intentions. Either it works or it doesn't work IN PRACTICE.

And so if your good intentions lead to catastrophic systematic collapse - then it was a crap idea! Irrespective of your intentions.
I've reached the end of my patience with you.

Its not my conceptual framework, its the universally accepted framework for democracy on this entire planet; however, it requires a NOTA box to make that a reality.

That's it, all the hard work has been done. The massively complex systems to make democracy are already in place. The NOTA option just makes them all work for EVERYONE. Now the system can no longer be gamed.

Whether you agree with the conceptual framework that justifies the NOTA option is irrelevant. Just focus on its practical application.

How it works in practice is you go to the voting booth and if the election does not guarantee an outcome you find acceptable, you tick the NOTA box, and if enough people think like you, you get a new election.

Straight forward.
Isn't this what I said?

NOTA is an option to PREVENT change, not DRIVE change

So if we hold an election/referendum to sign the Kyoto protocol or the Paris Agreement and the electorate likes neither option they tick NOTA.

And we (society) do nothing about global warming.
NOTA is about ensuring that we live in a democracy. Nothing more, nothing less.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:39 pm

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:35 pm
A spoilt vote register as an abstention, and there is no formal consequence of spoiling you ballot
It's entirely up to us on how we interpret abstentions/spoiled votes. We can interpret abstensions as NOTAs and they can be consequential. If we so choose.

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:35 pm
There should be an option on the ballot, and a democratically valid consequence for that choice.
Suppose that you tick the NOTA options and a re-election is held. What mechanism would lead to the options on the ballot being changed for the re-election, and if they aren't. What do you expect to happen next?

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

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

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:50 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:39 pm
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:35 pm
A spoilt vote register as an abstention, and there is no formal consequence of spoiling you ballot
It's entirely up to us on how we interpret abstentions/spoiled votes. We can interpret abstensions as NOTAs and they can be consequential. If we so choose.

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:35 pm
There should be an option on the ballot, and a democratically valid consequence for that choice.
Suppose that you tick the NOTA options and a re-election is held. What mechanism would lead to the options on the ballot being changed for the re-election, and if they aren't. What do you expect to happen next?
They are counted as abstentions. That's how it is. Every single person, save one, can spoil their ballot, save one, and that single non-spoilt ballot chooses the winner, technically anyway. To withhold consent on a practical basis requires an option on the ballot and a democratically valid consequence that is not up to someone's whim and fancy.

You don't need any formal mechanisms. The electoral body will re-schedule the election within 3-6 months. If no-one on the ballot gets the consent of the majority, you have another election until someone does. Elections are expensive for people running for office, they wont want to repeat getting NOTA winning repeatedly

That the practical reality of it.

In the meantime the seat will remain empty, and will automatically be registered as voting against any proposed legislation in the legislature, as this is democratically valid consequence of the voters choice from that electorate. This ensues that the legislative body has the incentive to ensure as few NOTA winners as possible in the first place, and to do that they have to work in the best interest of the public.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:07 pm

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:50 pm
They are counted as abstentions. That's how it is. Every single person, save one, can spoil their ballot, save one, and that single non-spoilt ballot chooses the winner, technically anyway. To withhold consent on a practical basis requires an option on the ballot and a democratically valid consequence that is not up to someone's whim and fancy.
Obviously that is how it is. Absence of NOTA on the ballot is also "how it is".

But we aren't talking about the status quo - we are talking about making alterations to the system.
And so if we are going to be altering the sytem we can alter it in any way we want to.

And so - on our whim and fancy we can alter the system such that abstentions are counted as NOTAS.

What is your argument for having a NOTA tickbox as opposed to interpreting abstinences or spoiled ballots as NOTAs ?

commonsense
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

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

Post by commonsense » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:23 pm

Roman,

I'll add 2 comments about elections in a post-NOTA era.

1. Candidates may want to run on their positions on the issues, rather than running a negative campaign. Whipping the voters into a panic, about how awful the opposing candidate is, may motivate more voters to vote NOTA.

2. If an election were to be rerun, I doubt that the same candidates would be run again. After all, any political operative would not want to put up someone who already lost to NOTA.

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

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

Post by romanv » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:26 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:07 pm
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:50 pm
They are counted as abstentions. That's how it is. Every single person, save one, can spoil their ballot, save one, and that single non-spoilt ballot chooses the winner, technically anyway. To withhold consent on a practical basis requires an option on the ballot and a democratically valid consequence that is not up to someone's whim and fancy.
Obviously that is how it is. Absence of NOTA on the ballot is also "how it is".

But we aren't talking about the status quo - we are talking about making alterations to the system.
And so if we are going to be altering the sytem we can alter it in any way we want to.

And so - on our whim and fancy we can alter the system such that abstentions are counted as NOTAS.

What is your argument for having a NOTA tickbox as opposed to interpreting abstinences or spoiled ballots as NOTAs ?
Its merry-go-round with you.

NOTA is a vote, its as valid as every other vote, so it should be chosen in the same way as other votes.

Forcing voters to deface a ballot carries negative implications. In fact, the idea that you have to deface a ballot in order to withhold your consent emphasises just how undemocratic the system is.

NOTA is a choice as valid as every other choice on the ballot, and it should be treated as such.
Last edited by romanv on Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

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

Post by romanv » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:32 pm

commonsense wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:23 pm
Roman,

I'll add 2 comments about elections in a post-NOTA era.

1. Candidates may want to run on their positions on the issues, rather than running a negative campaign. Whipping the voters into a panic, about how awful the opposing candidate is, may motivate more voters to vote NOTA.

2. If an election were to be rerun, I doubt that the same candidates would be run again. After all, any political operative would not want to put up someone who already lost to NOTA.
1. Yes, very much so imo. The presence of NOTA takes away all the tactical advantages of negative campaigning. It also will remove the big money from politics (and so the people in politics for financial gain will also disappear) as money can no longer buy results.

2. It depends on how the NOTA option is implemented. However I personally would very much against any stipulations. We don't know why voters chose NOTA. A vote is not only for the candidate, it is also for their party (unless it is an independent candidate) and the party's entire policy platform.

Candidates can be outstanding, but voters may have objected to something else entirely. We must ensure voters get to choose to use their vote as freely as possible, so imo that means no stipulations on who can stand in subsequent election.

The principle is to always keep the voter in charge of decision making; don't make decisions on their behalf, unless you have their consent.

Thanks chiming in btw, its a welcome relief from the other guy.

Ah sorry, I misread, you are not talking about stipulations, but about what may happen. What I hope its that it will connect political parties and candidates much more closely to all voters.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:51 pm

romanv wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:26 pm
Its merry-go-round with you.
It's hard getting through to you...
romanv wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:26 pm
Forcing voters to deface a ballot carries negative implications. In fact, the idea that you have to deface a ballot in order to withhold your consent emphasises just how undemocratic the system is.
Then don't deface it.

Leave the ballot paper blank. Or tick all the boxes. Or just stay at home on voting day. Create the ambiguity in any way you want.
romanv wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:26 pm
NOTA is a choice as valid as every other choice on the ballot, and it should be treated as such.
Refusing to vote is a choice as valid as every other choice on the ballot, and it should be treated as such.

So why not interpret no-votes as NOTA?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"why not interpret no-votes as NOTA?"

Post by henry quirk » Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:21 pm

Cuz non-voting don't mean diddly.

Consider...

100 can vote...75 don't. This means the candidate who gets the bulk of the 25 cast votes wins.

Consider...

100 can vote...75 vote for 'none of the above'. This means NOTA wins, the candidates go home, and a new election with new candidates must be held.

Profound difference, yeah?

Binding NOTA, obviously, is not interchangable with non-voting.

Now, yeah, we could formally (as a matter of law) declare non-voting as NOTA, and that would work, but simply 'interpreting' non-voting as NOTA just puts us where we are now with actual votes determining who wins.

Please note: there's a difference between symbolic NOTA and binding NOTA. The former is meaningless (except as a mostly ignored 'no confidence' vote) while the latter has teeth.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: "why not interpret no-votes as NOTA?"

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:35 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:21 pm
Cuz non-voting don't mean diddly.
As does scribbling the ballot, ticking all the boxes or leaving all the tickboxes blank or just staying at home on voting day

All of the above are equally inconsequential.
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:21 pm
simply 'interpreting' non-voting as NOTA just puts us where we are now with actual votes determining who wins.
No it doesn't. It means that no-shows now carry NOTA weight in elections.
Currently no-shows carry no weight in elections.
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:21 pm
Please note: there's a difference between symbolic NOTA and binding NOTA. The former is meaningless (except as a mostly ignored 'no confidence' vote) while the latter has teeth.
There is no difference whatsoever. It's all interpretation.

Right now spoiled ballots are discarded which makes them equivalent in weight to no-shows.

We are one law away from making both of those count as NOTA votes.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:53 pm

I'm guessin' when you say "interpret no-votes as NOTA" you mean the formal, legal, recognition of the non-votes as NOTA, yeah?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re:

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:10 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:53 pm
I'm guessin' when you say "interpret no-votes as NOTA" you mean the formal, legal, recognition of the non-votes as NOTA, yeah?
Yes. It's the only recognition that matters. Even today spoiled votes are counted and reported on. They just carry no weight towards the election outcome.

All we need to make them carry weight is a law.

Principle of least effort...

commonsense
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

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

Post by commonsense » Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:48 pm

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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests