Would an "against" vote be worthwhile?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-06-02 11:53am

Just as an addendum to current balloting styles. I mean, I get my ballot paper through the post, and the BNP are staring at me from the top of the voting form, and lower down are the prolife party.

Now, would it be feasible for an "against" vote to be introduced so people not only vote for the people they want, but they let people know how much they don't want other parties?

I'm not too sure how this would work, perhaps 2 people's against votes equal -1 pro vote? Any thoughts?

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2004-06-02 11:55am

Do you have a preference system in the UK?
In Australia when you vote, you vote preferences, so even if your first choice doesn't make the cut, it goes to your second choice (it is a little more comlicated), hence to vote against, you simply put the party you hate as your last preference.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-06-02 12:02pm

Mr Flibble wrote:Do you have a preference system in the UK?
In Australia when you vote, you vote preferences, so even if your first choice doesn't make the cut, it goes to your second choice (it is a little more comlicated), hence to vote against, you simply put the party you hate as your last preference.

I can't find my ballot paper at the moment, but I'm fairly sure you only put one mark against the person you want to get elected.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-06-02 12:50pm

I'm all for an against vote, though I would make it one against vote = -1 votes. One man, one (negative) vote. Amoung other things, it would likely increase voter turnout as a lot of the cynics would come out and vote for a change.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-02 01:10pm

Rye wrote:I can't find my ballot paper at the moment, but I'm fairly sure you only put one mark against the person you want to get elected.

It sounds different to our system. And it sounds like you want our system. Preference voting is exactly what you describe... well, maybe not exactly.

However, the party you WANT gets your vote, while the parties you LEAST WANT get put at the bottom of the pile.

There's also, I believe, the more time consuming senate vote where you have to individually number the senators you want through this system, and there's dozens of them. Of course, you can just number 5 boxes and be done with it, however, if you follow politics and know which ones are your favourites then going through the process might be rewarding.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-02 01:35pm

Personaly I think the option None of the Above should be added to the ballot. Its a way for people to show that they wanted to vote but are completely disatisfied with the available choices and deny their vote to everyone in that catagory.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2004-06-05 03:17am

I like the idea of a negative vote. If you can't vote for the person you want in office, vote to take one away from the fucker you DON'T want in office.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2004-06-05 03:26am

Nevada has "none of the above" and from what I've read, the politicians there hate it. That alone sounds like a strong argument in favor of it to me.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-06-05 10:19am

Alyeska wrote:Personaly I think the option None of the Above should be added to the ballot. Its a way for people to show that they wanted to vote but are completely disatisfied with the available choices and deny their vote to everyone in that catagory.

I'm for the 'none of the above' option too. If the 'none of the above' gets 51% or higher, no one should win and the parties should be forced to get new canidates and run a 'special election'.