None of the above

[Kathyan]

If there was a 'none of the above' box on the ballot paper, I wonder how many would put their cross there and what would happen if 'none of the above' won!?

[WoWo]

To be honest I don't think it would have much if any effect. I think that people are just not interested in the Policitcal process and don't bother to vote for that reason rather than the fact that they can't vote for none of the candidates.

If you do feel that nobody represents your views you can spoil your ballot paper, it is true that this all get lumped into a spolit ballot paper box and there is no way of knowing whether is was spoilt on purpose but it can be done.

Nothing would happen if "none of the above won", it would simply go to the candidate with the greatest number of votes.

[tell-me-more]

Good question Kathyan. I have seen elections with the option to vote for "Re-Opening Nominations" and I've even seen Vote RON campaigns during those elections.

Personally, I think democracy's a bit over-rated bearing in mind that we can't vote on the electoral system.

My local government has six unelected members because no-one else stood for election, and our national government was elected by about 9 million people, and yet governs a nation of nearly 7 times that.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Personally, I'm all in favour of mandatory voting with the option to choose an abstention, if so desired. As WoWo says, the vote would go to the named candidate with the most votes but the abstentions could be a useful indicator of how enfranchised people felt.

[Goodsoulette]

I agree with waldo. Also if people had to vote then maybe they would bother to find out what they are voting for. My parents vote for the party they have because they always have and you CANT vote for them. Thats what their parents thought too.

[LeMarchand]

I would! What would happen is that the next highest "winner" would get in. What should happen is that "they" realise that we don't trust any of the lying, cheating, theiving lot of them.

[tell-me-more]

I would hate to see mandatory voting. Instead, I'd like it to be mandatory for anyone seeking to "represent" a group of people to secure their agreement, instead of securing 21% of the group's agreement and then claiming to represent the whole lot.

In case you're wondering where 21% came from, that's the percentage of the population who voted for Labour at the last election.

[jump79]

Personally, I hope a lot of people do that just to show the political parties what they really think of them.... though I don't know what some people are thinking when they vote, as Blair seemed to do just fine at the last election. I guess choosing the least useless of them all has always been a safe bet (not really though).

[SaxyJag]

I don't know what would happen if 'none of the above' won - hopefully the political parties would see some sense at last and put up candidates who actually have a vested interest in their constituency.

I certainly put my cross in the 'none of the above' box. Rather, I put a big cross through the complete voting slip and write 'none of the above' in big letters at the bottom.

[zipadeedodah]

Mandatory voting was one of the topics on Matthew Wright's show this morning (happened to have it on..). Im not sure if voting should be compulsory, but in a way I do take Matthew Wight's view that if this was the case, and a majority of the country voted 'none of the above' then although the party with the next highest votes would win, it might make the politicians realise that something has to be done.

I'm 20 and have never really taken much of an interest in politics at all - however now studying abit of economics on a business course I realise just how much politics affects my life. People don't vote because they don't really know enough about it - it is also not clear what each party stands for. Ideally the parties would come up with ways of making people want to vote for them, rather than it being compulsory.

[laurence2]

who would know, if none of the above won?

[WoWo]

Currently the number of spoilt ballot papers is reported, similarly the number of None of the Above would also be reported.

[WaldoMcFroog]

A spoilt paper is different to a deliberately marked 'None of the above' though, and you'd still have to count spoilt papers in their own right.

[Catso]

Surely there is a difference between a spoilt paper and a 'non of the above' vote? One means 'I don't really want to take part in this' and the other 'I do want to take part, but I'm not happy with any of the candidates'.
I'd love to have a 'non of the above' option. I hope it would show the present political parties what people think of them!
As I recall, student union elections I voted in (long ago) had this option. If 'non of the above' won, the election had to be rerun, with additional (or different?) candidates.

[jenstar]

I don't think democratic elections can ever be considered fair without a None Of The Above option.