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

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:09 am

commonsense wrote:
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.
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.

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.
Last edited by romanv on Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:31 am, edited 6 times 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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
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?
Look this has been done to death. You proposed that instead of a NOTA option, we should just leave ballots blank or deface them etc. I have given pretty good reasons why i disagree.

Also how do you separate defaced ballots or blank ballots for NOTA from those done in error? This is just unnecessary ambiguity. NOTA is a vote and should be treated just like all other votes.
I'm guessin' when you say "interpret no-votes as NOTA" you mean the formal, legal, recognition of the non-votes as NOTA, yeah?
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.

Abstaining is perfectly legitimate, and many will have good reason to do so.

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:08 am

romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 am
Look this has been done to death. You proposed that instead of a NOTA option, we should just leave ballots blank or deface them etc. I have given pretty good reasons why i disagree.

Also how do you separate defaced ballots or blank ballots for NOTA from those done in error? This is just unnecessary ambiguity. NOTA is a vote and should be treated just like all other votes.
You are failing to differentiate signaling from processing.

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!

And when your ballot paper is counted your unambiguous NOTA singnal will be PROCESSED in exactly the same way as a blank ballot, defaced ballot or abstained votes.

That is: it will carry absolutely no weight towards the election result.

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:57 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:08 am
romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 am
Look this has been done to death. You proposed that instead of a NOTA option, we should just leave ballots blank or deface them etc. I have given pretty good reasons why i disagree.

Also how do you separate defaced ballots or blank ballots for NOTA from those done in error? This is just unnecessary ambiguity. NOTA is a vote and should be treated just like all other votes.
You are failing to differentiate signaling from processing.

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!

And when your ballot paper is counted your unambiguous NOTA singnal will be PROCESSED in exactly the same way as a blank ballot, defaced ballot or abstained votes.

That is: it will carry absolutely no weight towards the election result.
Your point being...

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:59 am

romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:57 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:08 am
romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 am
Look this has been done to death. You proposed that instead of a NOTA option, we should just leave ballots blank or deface them etc. I have given pretty good reasons why i disagree.

Also how do you separate defaced ballots or blank ballots for NOTA from those done in error? This is just unnecessary ambiguity. NOTA is a vote and should be treated just like all other votes.
You are failing to differentiate signaling from processing.

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!

And when your ballot paper is counted your unambiguous NOTA singnal will be PROCESSED in exactly the same way as a blank ballot, defaced ballot or abstained votes.

That is: it will carry absolutely no weight towards the election result.
Your point being...
My point being that the shortest path to NOTA is to change the processing (interpretation/counting).

The signaling is already there. It is not ambiguous as you claim it to be.

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:08 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:59 am
romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:57 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:08 am

You are failing to differentiate signaling from processing.

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!

And when your ballot paper is counted your unambiguous NOTA singnal will be PROCESSED in exactly the same way as a blank ballot, defaced ballot or abstained votes.

That is: it will carry absolutely no weight towards the election result.
Your point being...
My point being that the shortest path to NOTA is to change the processing (counting).

The signaling is already there. It is not ambiguous as you claim it to be.
It isn't. You cant easily differentiate between an error and a NOTA vote.

Also as I have pointed out, NOTA should be treated as all other options, not singled out to signaled in a special way that's not easy to let voters know that is a new option.

Am I to take i you now support NOTA, but for some trivial reason still don't want it to on the ballot, or are you angling for a way to hide the option from voters?

They have make new ballots every election, there is no possible benefit to your suggestion.

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:11 am

romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:08 am
It isn't. You cant easily differentiate between an error and a NOTA vote.
Yeah. Because people deface ballots by accident.
romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:08 am
Am I to take i you now support NOTA, but for some trivial reason,or still don't want it to on the ballot, or are you angling for a way to hide the option from voters?
Have I expressed any support OR rejection? All I care about is system design and understanding your reasoning/conception of "democracy". My support or rejection of it requires empirical evidence for the end-result or unforeseen negative consequences.

And so far you have given me no reason why an abstention can't be counted as NOTA. Is it not undemocratic if decisions are made on 20% voter base when 80% abstain from voting (for whatever reasons)?
romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:08 am
They have make new ballots every election, there is no possible benefit to your suggestion.
Naturally. Nobody cares about the ballot. It's a red herring.

The processing is the hard problem.

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:33 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:11 am
romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:08 am
It isn't. You cant easily differentiate between an error and a NOTA vote.
Yeah. Because people deface ballots by accident.
romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:08 am
Am I to take i you now support NOTA, but for some trivial reason,or still don't want it to on the ballot, or are you angling for a way to hide the option from voters?
Have I expressed any support OR rejection? All I care about is system design and understanding your reasoning/conception of "democracy". My support or rejection of it requires empirical evidence for the end-result or unforeseen negative consequences.

And so far you have given me no reason why an abstention can't be counted as NOTA. Is it not undemocratic if decisions are made on 20% voter base when 80% abstain from voting (for whatever reasons)?
romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:08 am
They have make new ballots every election, there is no possible benefit to your suggestion.
Naturally. Nobody cares about the ballot. It's a red herring.

The processing is the hard problem.
Abstention = not voting. Which which can be signaled not voting. And obviously counts as nothing. As it is not a vote.

NOTA = which is withholding your consent for an election to declare a winner, which is signaled by ticking the NOTA box. Which counts a vote. As it is a vote.

Naturally you don't want any overlap between the 2 as this will distort the outcome of an election from being the will of the majority.

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:35 am

romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:33 am
Abstention = not voting. Which which can be signaled not voting. And obviously counts as nothing. As it is not a vote.

NOTA = which is withholding your consent for an election to declare a winner, which is signaled by ticking the NOTA box. Which counts a vote. As it is a vote.

Naturally you don't want any overlap between the 2 as this will distort the outcome of an election from being the will of the majority.
We are not arguing over the definitions/distinctions between abstention and voting now.

I am trying to understand your conception/criterion for "real democracy": Do you live in a "real democracy" if 49% of the voter base can dictate policy for 51% of the abstainers? That is not "the will of the majority". It is the "will of those who cared enough to vote".

Is "real democracy" founded on the OPPORTUNITY or the RESPONSIBILITY to vote?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11520
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

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

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:25 am

Has the NOTA vote worked in the way you hope in Australia?

surreptitious57
Posts: 2663
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:26 am

Voting does not automatically involve logic and reason no more than not voting does not involve them
Abstaining is an important part of the democratic process and is why voting should not be compulsory

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:11 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:26 am
Voting does not automatically involve logic and reason no more than not voting does not involve them
Abstaining is an important part of the democratic process and is why voting should not be compulsory
See! You and romanv already have different conceptions of what a "democracy" is supposed to be and how it's supposed to work! Whose conception is "better"?

I guess we could put it to a vote ;)

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:26 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:25 am
Has the NOTA vote worked in the way you hope in Australia?
They don't have one in Australia.

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:29 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:35 am
romanv wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:33 am
Abstention = not voting. Which which can be signaled not voting. And obviously counts as nothing. As it is not a vote.

NOTA = which is withholding your consent for an election to declare a winner, which is signaled by ticking the NOTA box. Which counts a vote. As it is a vote.

Naturally you don't want any overlap between the 2 as this will distort the outcome of an election from being the will of the majority.
We are not arguing over the definitions/distinctions between abstention and voting now.

I am trying to understand your conception/criterion for "real democracy": Do you live in a "real democracy" if 49% of the voter base can dictate policy for 51% of the abstainers? That is not "the will of the majority". It is the "will of those who cared enough to vote".

Is "real democracy" founded on the OPPORTUNITY or the RESPONSIBILITY to vote?
Yes it is. As abstaining when a NOTA option is present is a choice, and the choice is to go along with voters choose, as otherwise they would have voted.

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 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:31 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:26 am
Voting does not automatically involve logic and reason no more than not voting does not involve them
Abstaining is an important part of the democratic process and is why voting should not be compulsory
Thank you for posting. I sometimes wonder what planet I am on when answering the seemingly only other poster on this thread.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests