Improving democracy with Negative voting.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-06-06 01:19pm

Wanted to test an idea that I've been playing around with for a few years. (This idea works better in more diversified democracies like in europe rather than the two-party lineup in the USA.)

I think that the current adopted version of representative democracy has a flaw that could be corrected.
The flaw being that you can only vote FOR something. This gives the feeling of voting for the lesser evel problem.

My idea for improving our representative democracy is to give more power to the people by giving them the possibility to vote AGAINST everything that they are allowed to vote for.

If you don't think that there is a political party/person that represents your view but you feel that there is a political party/person that is contrary to your own view.
Then instead of voting for a party you put your vote against your political adversaries and that counts as a negative vote for that party.

This would make more people interested in politics since even the unaffiliated would feel that they can make a difference. It would also provoke a whole new debate climate within politics and media.

My personal opinion is that it is a really good thought provoking idea but that reality isn't this easy. So in utopia I'd like it right away but in reality I'd be reluctant. But it usually draws out the zealots in political discussions.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-06-06 04:45pm

Can I shudder at this moment for the possbilities in the US? I know you were thinking about in Europe's context so I'll think about that a bit.

I think ultimately creates the wrong feeling of politics. I do not think that one is supposed to vote against somebody, ultimately. Democracy is about making your voice heard, not stifling other's voices. If nobody is representing your view, you likely aren't looking hard enough or need to compromise on some issues. To take Britain as an example, I'm probably not exactly any party but I vote Liberal Democrat because its closest.

Could also lead to some serious anti-people advertising instead of the pro-people advertising we're trying to promote. I can see one good thing though. There might be plenty of people disillusioned with modern politics but willing to "give Blair a bloody nose" or "Keep the Tories out" or stop the BNP from winning anything. I personally would oppose it but I'd love to hear one seat where somebody could - votes and had to give more money to their deposit or something.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-06 04:53pm

This doesn't really make a difference in the actual election, but it will result in an orgasmic, vitriolic, shit-throwing feeding frenzy. It'd be like hearing the average SD.N post, only spoken aloud, with hate dripping from every syllable.

I mean seriously, think, for one second, about a fundie on one of those advertising commercial: "*insert party candidate here* IS A VILE, SATAN-FUCKING, COW-HUMPING SUCKER OF FROGSPAWN, WHO DESERVES TO BURN WITH THE PAIN OF A THOUSAND SUNS FOR ETERNITY!!!"

We'd definitely see a decrease in the number of voters, as only the extremists rush out to vote against so-and-so, because he's evil.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-06-06 05:27pm

There´s a problem with this system. In the current system a certain political party gets a amount X of votes which are Y percent. This party then gets Y percent of controll over the government thus representing Y percent of the people.

If negative votes are introduced Y percent of people might vote this political party in but it will not controll Y percent of the government.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-06-06 05:33pm

Spoonist:

If a voter were to vote against someone with this system you are advocating, has he used up the one vote he possesses? The details need to be cleared up a bit.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-06-06 06:21pm

This could bring new heights in election insanity.

"The Republican candidate has a staggering -487,000 votes, where the Democrat candidate has a mere -422,000 votes. And the 'Stewart/Frakes' ticket wins, having secured at least sixty votes spread across the nation!"

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-06-06 07:15pm

Ironically, the Soviet Union actually did have this feature in its elections (such as they were). It was called simply the None Of The Above vote. If the candidates up for an election racked up a huge negative vote, they were disqualified and a new election with a new slate of candidates was held.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-06-06 10:55pm

Actually, I think a "None of the Above" option on elections would be a good thing. It's better than holding your nose for the least worst candidate and sends a bigger message than simply not voting.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-06-07 02:36am

Lord Zentei wrote:Spoonist:

If a voter were to vote against someone with this system you are advocating, has he used up the one vote he possesses? The details need to be cleared up a bit.

As it said in the OP.

Instead of voting for you can vote against.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-06-07 02:40am

salm wrote:There´s a problem with this system. In the current system a certain political party gets a amount X of votes which are Y percent. This party then gets Y percent of controll over the government thus representing Y percent of the people.

If negative votes are introduced Y percent of people might vote this political party in but it will not controll Y percent of the government.

That is not an issue.
It is only positive votes that count for the Y %.
Just like today when a lot of people don't vote, their mandate is distributed among the positive votes.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-06-07 02:42am

wolveraptor wrote:This doesn't really make a difference in the actual election, but it will result in an orgasmic, vitriolic, shit-throwing feeding frenzy. It'd be like hearing the average SD.N post, only spoken aloud, with hate dripping from every syllable.

I mean seriously, think, for one second, about a fundie on one of those advertising commercial: "*insert party candidate here* IS A VILE, SATAN-FUCKING, COW-HUMPING SUCKER OF FROGSPAWN, WHO DESERVES TO BURN WITH THE PAIN OF A THOUSAND SUNS FOR ETERNITY!!!"

We'd definitely see a decrease in the number of voters, as only the extremists rush out to vote against so-and-so, because he's evil.

Two things.

1. If extremists would come out and vote negatively is that a problem? Shouldn't they also be part of the democratic process.
2. Not only would the extremists be able to vote against mainstream, but mainstream would for the first time get the chance to vote against the extremists.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-06-07 02:45am

To stir things up a bit:

An example from reality.

In the 20's & 30's in germany a lot of people where against the nazi party coming to power but felt that they couldn't vote for the party that was against the nazis (usually leftwingers). Instead they voted for the lesser evil, which after the elections joined the greater evil and put them in power.

If there had been the possiblity of negative voting alot of people would have kept the nazis out of power instead of puting their vote on a pointless candidate.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2005-06-07 07:17am

Negative voting would be a good idea, but you've have to make the ballets oh so clear

i.e
"THIS is a RED BALLET. THIS MEANS YOU ARE VOTING AGAINST THE PERSON YOU CHOOSE"

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2005-06-07 09:51am

Spoonist wrote:
Two things.

1. If extremists would come out and vote negatively is that a problem? Shouldn't they also be part of the democratic process.

Actually, only people that truely understand the issues and are making an informed decision should be voting. But seeming as that would upset the other 98% of voters, sure why the hell not.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-06-07 10:24am

Gil Hamilton wrote:Actually, I think a "None of the Above" option on elections would be a good thing. It's better than holding your nose for the least worst candidate and sends a bigger message than simply not voting.

That option is already available. You hand in a "blank vote". Adding none of the above wouldn't change much in that regard.

Spoonist wrote:As it said in the OP.

Instead of voting for you can vote against.

Which presumably would count as "-1 vote for the candidate", correct? So a candidate who receives 10 votes and 3 anti-votes has 7 votes total?

It might increase the power of radical voters who are those most likely not to be represented by the large parties, that's the main disadvantage I can see with this system. Though it would be a far better "protest mechanism" for disillusioned voters than abstainging or staying at home, I'll grant that.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2005-06-07 11:32am

I very much like this idea.

Simply staying home projects laziness and/or apathy. This would say I care enough to get in my car, drive to the fire station and officially declare my lack of confidence in you. Without falsely stating that I, by extension, think John Kerry is worth a shit.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-06-07 11:50am

Darth Raptor wrote:I very much like this idea.

Simply staying home projects laziness and/or apathy. This would say I care enough to get in my car, drive to the fire station and officially declare my lack of confidence in you. Without falsely stating that I, by extension, think John Kerry is worth a shit.

Exactly.

Instead of voting for the lesser evil you can vote against the greater evil... unless its cthulu of course then he'd swallow you alive and disolve you for a millenia

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-06-07 11:52am

Lord Zentei wrote:
Spoonist wrote:As it said in the OP.

Instead of voting for you can vote against.
Which presumably would count as "-1 vote for the candidate", correct? So a candidate who receives 10 votes and 3 anti-votes has 7 votes total?

Jupp that's right 13 people vote, 10 for and 3 against, the candidate gets a total of 7 votes.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-06-07 11:56am

Spyder wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Two things.

1. If extremists would come out and vote negatively is that a problem? Shouldn't they also be part of the democratic process.
Actually, only people that truely understand the issues and are making an informed decision should be voting. But seeming as that would upset the other 98% of voters, sure why the hell not.

Ah, but then we wouldn't be talking about representative democracy...
We would be talking about a form of technocracy, now think of a governement ruled by dilbert and you get the picture.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-06-07 12:02pm

Another example:

A political candidate pops up that want to ban the internet, this fellow is getting a lot of fringe votes, now unless all but one of all the other candidates withdraw you usually don't know who to vote for so that they get more votes than the popular lunatic. Instead of playing lottery with such important issues you just vote against the lunatic.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-06-07 12:06pm

Lord Zentei wrote:That option is already available. You hand in a "blank vote". Adding none of the above wouldn't change much in that regard.

There is a difference. If you simply don't vote and leave it blank, then they don't count you at all, for good or bad. A None of the Above option is countable and recordable, thus can convey disapproval of all candidates.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-06-07 02:11pm

You can get the same effect with Approval Voting. In an Approval vote, you cast one vote for each candidate you think would do a good job. This has the advantage that you don't have to worry about throwing your vote away; you can vote for a major party candidate and any smaller ones that strike your fancy.

And, most relevantly, you can get the same effect as voting against someone by voting for everyone else.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-06-07 03:10pm

Might this system lead to even more pussyfooting around subjects trying not to upset people for fear of negative votes and less positive seeking approval?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-07 03:37pm

Let's face it: Joe Average will whine and cry for an honest politician, but once he gets one, he'll be offended by the guy's opinion. A democratic election just isn't built to have honest input and opinion, not if you really want to win. Ultimately, politicians have to make compromises to be good leaders. Some might call that pusilanimous pussy-footing, but that's how it works.

Solauren wrote:Negative voting would be a good idea, but you've have to make the ballets oh so clear

i.e
"THIS is a RED BALLET. THIS MEANS YOU ARE VOTING AGAINST THE PERSON YOU CHOOSE"

OMG....I could SO abuse that system...

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-06-07 03:43pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:That option is already available. You hand in a "blank vote". Adding none of the above wouldn't change much in that regard.
There is a difference. If you simply don't vote and leave it blank, then they don't count you at all, for good or bad. A None of the Above option is countable and recordable, thus can convey disapproval of all candidates.

No? Blank votes are counted in Iceland anyway (specifically in order to convey the "protest" angle), thouh they don't count them for distributing seats in parliament or anything. Usually, only very few people leave a blank.