Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

I think that's what it's called, at least.

Speaking to someone from Colombia, they mentioned how their voting system has the candidates and then another spot that you can check which essentially says that you don't vote for any of them.

I think it's a great idea. Rather than simply dismissing the election, you're actively condemning it. As a result, governments can distinguish between indifference and objection.

Any reason why Canada or the USA should not have an option such as this?

 

[Greenpanda]

Because there's no point to it?

 

[etiolate]

I think there should be a negative vote as well as a positive vote. You have one positive vote and one negative vote you can cast. You can vote against the douche you dislike, instead of voting for another douche just to spite the first one. All the while you can still vote for someone you actually believe in instead of can just deal with.

PS: Franz Ferdinand rocks.

 

[G4life98]

that is the most pointless thing ever and an easy way for indecisive losers to give the illusion of democratic participation.

 

[Socreges]

Both governments are concerned about the low voter turn-outs. This would be the most telling way of finding out why. Even polls couldn't effectively discern between actual indifference or spite.

that is the most pointless thing ever and an easy way for indecisive losers to give the illusion of democratic participation.

Again, the White Vote would be an OBJECTION. Not an "I don't know" or whatever. If such people choose to check off the spot that essentially says they would not be pleased with any of the candidates, they can do so - but if they're conscious of what exactly that entails, I doubt they would do that.

 

[maharg]

In Canada, people use a spoiled ballot as an objection. It was quite effective in my province, Alberta, where the results of the elections are pretty much predetermined for various reasons.

 

[EmSeta]

What, you can't do that in the US? Most European countries offer that option.

 

[FightyF]

What you really need is a ballot joke character. That way, the objection of the election is embodied into a physical being and the results of the objection are easy to gauge.

Bob Backlund would be perfect for this.

 

[Socreges]

In Canada, people use a spoiled ballot as an objection. It was quite effective in my province, Alberta, where the results of the elections are pretty much predetermined for various reasons.

Are the spoiled ballots wholly acknowledged as an objection, though?

 

[maharg]

Are the spoiled ballots wholly acknowledged as an objection, though?

Well, it's not exactly hard to discern a larger than usual number of spoiled ballots. If, for example, there are as many spoiled ballots as there are votes for the lowest candidate, that's a sign. That was what happened in Alberta, iirc. There was a concerted word of mouth campaign for spoiled ballots as a protest against the difficulties of opposition parties in Alberta, and the media noticed when the numbers came out.

It's impossible to tell exactly, though. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US all sorts of mechanical contraptions are used to do the voting, rather than good old pencil on paper, so it may be more difficult to spoil your ballot effectively.

 

[Socreges]

Well, it's not exactly hard to discern a larger than usual number of spoiled ballots. If, for example, there are as many spoiled ballots as there are votes for the lowest candidate, that's a sign. That was what happened in Alberta, iirc. There was a concerted word of mouth campaign for spoiled ballots as a protest against the difficulties of opposition parties in Alberta, and the media noticed when the numbers came out.

I never heard about that (I live in BC). What effect did that have?

 

[maharg]

I never heard about that (I live in BC). What effect did that have?

Mostly just media attention to the issues of alberta elections. No real change, because let's face it, in Alberta there is no polical change short of party death.

But for a little while, people were more aware there was a problem.

 

[The Faceless Master]

that is the most pointless thing ever and an easy way for indecisive losers to give the illusion of democratic participation.

it's not indecisive to figure out that you don't want to vote for any of the available candidates...

 

[sc0la]

They tried to pass something as a binding "None of the above" in California before. It did not pass. One of the problems with that is that it forces another election for those positions that garnered the "non of the above" which can potentially cost a lot of money. I think voting systems based on pluralities and IRV are more practical since they are all self contained with in one election.

 

[Wolfy]

Find a 3rd party candidate.

 

[Desperado]

I thought this was gonna be about a vote for white people or something..

 

[ChrisReid]

Again, the White Vote would be an OBJECTION. Not an "I don't know" or whatever. If such people choose to check off the spot that essentially says they would not be pleased with any of the candidates, they can do so - but if they're conscious of what exactly that entails, I doubt they would do that.

But people won't use this as an objection.. they'll also use it when they don't know. So you go back to the original question: how does the government tell the difference between indifference or spite? This "white vote" doesn't tell you anything.

 

[Azih]

I was manning a poll booth in the recent Canadian elections and there were like 5 ballots which had. "THERE IS NO PRO LIFE PARTY" written on them. Obviously a protest vote and a fairly well organised one but there was no real effect as the ballot was counted in the same way as the douchebag who put a tick for two candidates.

 

[Minotauro]

I think we do have something like this. It's called "Ralph Nader."

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Maybe in the future, but I dont know about this election. Kerry and Bush seem pretty even in the latest polls, with Kerry having a slight lead. There is like a 9% undecided vote out there that will mean just about everything...

Eugh, Im not really liking this election so far. Its not so much I want to vote for Kerry as I don't want to vote for Bush.

*researches 3rd party options*

 

[maharg]

But people won't use this as an objection.. they'll also use it when they don't know. So you go back to the original question: how does the government tell the difference between indifference or spite? This "white vote" doesn't tell you anything.

Well, that's not really fair unless voting is compulsory. If it's not, people who don't care will presumably not even bother to vote.

 

[Socreges]

But people won't use this as an objection.. they'll also use it when they don't know. So you go back to the original question: how does the government tell the difference between indifference or spite? This "white vote" doesn't tell you anything.

You're saying exactly the same thing as G4life, without providing anything more.

If they use the objection because they can't choose, then they are effectively saying that they are not happy with any of the choices. If people are aware of that fact, they are more likely to pick between the candidates. Besides, it is definitely not as if the struggle between two choices is so strenuous that people could not eventually work out which they prefer.