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.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:48 pm1. 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.
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.
The current system disenfranchises many voters, and also does not allow that disenfranchisement to show itself.
I can show people how NOTA is fundamental to a proportional representation system, in fact, show how it is essential for all electoral systems so they will work to benefit voters.
What I do want is people to understand is that NOTA is FUNDAMENTAL. Its not a 'nice to have' or something to tag on. Without NOTA all voters are being massively short-changed from the potential benefits of a real democracy.
NOTA is not something that comes after other proposal, it is something MUST be part of other proposals. I cannot emphasise it enough; voters must have the ability to withhold consent.
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.
In any other scenario, we would find the idea of restricting adults from saying 'No' to something as preposterous. Why do we think this is acceptable in elections? It is the restriction to saying 'no' during elections that is preposterous and crazy. NOTA is bringing normality to a crazy scenario.