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 » Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:22 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:53 am
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.
Compulsory voting is a great way to ensure abstentions carry no weight! Naturally - that's exactly what a politician against NOTA would try and sell you ;)

If I liked the options - I would come and vote.
I don't like the options - but must waste 2 hours of my time to come and tick the NOTA box?

Are you going to throw me in jail for valuing my time? So much for freedom...

The system is for the people, not the other way around. It works however WE decide WE WANT it to work!

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11754
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 » Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:11 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:Compulsory voting is a great way to ensure abstentions carry no weight! Naturally - that's exactly what a politician against NOTA would try and sell you ;)
Not sure where you live but abstentions carry no weight over here.
If I liked the options - I would come and vote.
I don't like the options - but must waste 2 hours of my time to come and tick the NOTA box?
2 hours!? Where do you live? It takes less than 20 mins here as there's a polling station in every local school. All those people who fought and in some cases died to give you the vote must really feel for the agony of you giving up two hours of your time. :lol:

The outcome of a NOTA vote would depend upon what is done if the NOTA vote wins, depending upon that it could change political parties in what they offer to the voter.
Are you going to throw me in jail for valuing my time? So much for freedom...
No, over here I'd tie it to accessing government services.
The system is for the people, not the other way around. It works however WE decide WE WANT it to work!
Who's this 'we'?
p.s.
Thinking about it, it's taxes that pay for such access so not a solution. Fines not imprisonment then, unless of course you don't pay the fines. :lol:

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 » Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:15 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:11 pm
Not sure where you live but abstentions carry no weight over here.
Abstentions carry no weight anywhere. We are not discussing what is. We are discussing what ought to be.
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:11 pm
2 hours!? Where do you live? It takes less than 20 mins here as there's a polling station in every local school. All those people who fought and in some cases died to give you the vote must really feel for the agony of you giving up two hours of your time. :lol:
I am one of those people who fought. Still busy fighting. Despite getting shot in the process. Don't come with this nonsense ;)
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:11 pm
The outcome of a NOTA vote would depend upon what is done if the NOTA vote wins,
Weasel words. Who decides what is to be done if the NOTA vote wins? The electorate or the government?

Ultimately: who is in control?
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:11 pm
No, over here I'd tie it to accessing government services.
So you will deny me access to government services? Cool. By reciprocity I trust you will not forget to stop taking my taxes also?
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:11 pm
Who's this 'we'?
We - the people. We - the electorate. We - the tax payers. We - the voters.

We are in control. Not the government. The government is a manifestation of our will. If it's not mob rule - it is not democracy.
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:11 pm
Thinking about it, it's taxes that pay for such access so not a solution. Fines not imprisonment then, unless of course you don't pay the fines. :lol:
It speaks to your subservient mindset ;) Even if you didn't have "UK" in your username - I'd guess where you lived.

And back to the important question: Ultimately, who is in control?

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 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:58 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:53 am
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.
In general, I am pretty much against compulsory voting, as there are valid reasons to abstain.

However, as many people make compulsory voting a condition for introducing NOTA, in the spirit of pragmatism, I would accept, as long as there was an 'Abstain' option as well, as a condition to bring a formal and binding NOTA into the electoral system.

It would be the worst of all worlds, just as we have now, if NOTA and abstention was intermingled. It would be as if nothing had changed.

NOTA is there to provide a clear and reliable measure of public dissatisfaction, this measure is a vital baseline measurement required for the successful givernance of a country. There can to no non-corrupt or rational reason to not ensure we measure public dissatisfaction, and the only way to do that is with a formal and binding NOTA option. There is no substitute for it.
If I liked the options - I would come and vote.
I don't like the options - but must waste 2 hours of my time to come and tick the NOTA box?
Do you understand that NOTA is not abstention, but voting against all the options? So, it would not be a waste of your time. Your voice would be heard, and if enough people were also dissatisfied, then the election would be held again.

I don't like compulsory voting, so if your dissatisfaction was not enough to bring you to the voting booth, that would be fine with me also.

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 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:02 am

romanv wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:58 am
Do you understand that NOTA is not abstention, but voting against all the options? So, it would not be a waste of your time. Your voice would be heard, and if enough people were also dissatisfied, then the election would be held again.
Do you understand that whether NOTA is or is not the same as an abstention IN PRACTICE is simply a matter of system design? It's just a choice!

And if we can CHOOSE to update the system in the way you propose then we can also CHOOSE to update the system in the way that I propose.

Do you understand that this argument boils down to "Which CHOICE is better?"

IF we update the system in the way that you propose then my abstention is not being heard!
IF we update the system in the way that I propose then my abstention is being heard!
romanv wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:58 am
I don't like compulsory voting, so if your dissatisfaction was not enough to bring you to the voting booth, that would be fine with me also.
Well, you don't get to have it both ways!

If you care enough about my dissatisfaction AND you wish for my voice to be heard, then hear this: I abstain from voting BECAUSE I am dissatisfied with the options. Adding a new tickbox is not going to fix my dissatisfaction.

By CHOOSING to ignore abstentions from the counting process you are basically sticking your head in the sand.
You are CHOOSING to discard voter apathy as a valid voice! The LOUDEST voice.

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 Jan 08, 2019 1:03 am

^ Its so weird. I can only assume he is trolling. The definition of abstention is not voting. So you can abstain by not voting, which you can't do if voting is compulsory unless there was an option to abstain, which is in many ways absurd, as you have to go to a voting booth to abstain from voting.

If NOTA is in place, you automatically measure abstention, as everyone else would have voted.

Anyway. :D

The white paper on the proposal has now been published.

Here is the link:

https://nota-uk.org/2019/01/07/nota-uk- ... ite-paper/

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:36 am

romanv wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:03 am
So you can abstain by not voting, which you can't do if voting is compulsory.
This is not true. A person can abstain from compulsory voting. Civil disobedience.

There is no mechanism to force a person to vote beyond their own willingness to comply with compulsion laws. You can legally reprimand a person for not-voting, but you can't force them to 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 Jan 09, 2019 3:28 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:36 am
romanv wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:03 am
So you can abstain by not voting, which you can't do if voting is compulsory.
This is not true. A person can abstain from compulsory voting. Civil disobedience.

There is no mechanism to force a person to vote beyond their own willingness to comply with compulsion laws. You can legally reprimand a person for not-voting, but you can't force them to vote.
Ok.

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 Jan 09, 2019 3:30 am

A snippet of the interview from 'The Wright Stuff' radio show of my colleague on the white paper and NOTA.

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1 ... Kn5FHGkgk

commonsense
Posts: 998
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 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:49 pm

The linked material contains strong arguments supporting the claim that the ability to formally withhold consent is necessary to reflect the true voice of the people. You and your co-authors have provided convincing evidence to that end.

Although NOTA will significantly impact elections in democratic states, it will not change the way that representative officials behave during campaigns nor once elected.

To get elected a candidate must appear to be concerned with the common good. He then has to identify or create alarming problems, including the problem of an opponent winning. Next, he must portray himself as the best solution. Finally, he must motivate his constituents to vote.

The candidate must accomplish these things with the largest number of voters as possible. To do that, he needs political ads that showcase his strengths and his opponent’s weaknesses. Political ads cost money, and he needs lots of them.

Candidates will continue to act this way, even after the implementation of NOTA. Once elected, the wise politician will work for those who made the greatest donations to help him get elected, i.e., lobbies, corporations and special interest groups.

In as nuch as the purpose of elections is to convey the sovereignty of the people, NOTA will improve communication. On the other hand, NOTA will not drive away self-serving career politicians nor replace them with noble leaders.

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 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:53 pm

Sorry I didn't realise someone had replied, hence the delayed response.
Candidates will continue to act this way, even after the implementation of NOTA. Once elected, the wise politician will work for those who made the greatest donations to help him get elected, i.e., lobbies, corporations and special interest groups.
This is what happens now. I think we are agreed on that. However, the difference is that when NOTA is in place, if the candidate's actions do not maximise the common good, or at the least make the lives of the majority of his/or her constituents better, people will choose NOTA instead. So, all that money will have been wasted, unless, the candidate, even though in receipt of all this money, pursues goals that maximises the common good.

What we envisage happening is that special interest money will move out of politics, as it can no longer buy the outcomes that that money is supposed to purchase, and when that happens so to will career politicians who are in politics for financial gain.

How do politicians then obtain money? Grassroots support - which they will get if they are a candidate of competence and integrity.

NOTA changes the balance of power. Now votes count more than money.


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 » Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:25 am

commonsense wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:47 pm
Well put. You have my vote!
Glad to hear it. :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests