Should there be a "none of the above" box on all voting slips?

Question

Many people don't vote because none of the available candidates are worth voting for. This can lead to accusations that if you don't vote then you can't complain about whatever government was voted in.

If there was "none of the above" option (or something similar) then surely this would be a way of finding out whether the lack of votes was due to apathy or antipathy. A high vote would indicate that the system itself needs to change.

In the UK, more than half of people don't vote at general elections and it would be useful to find out why. Only a third of those that do vote are needed to "elect" a government.

Answer 1

I personally would like to see that - and if a majority of voters select it, the current person in office stays until a new selection of candidates can be offered for the public to vote on.

I am sooooo tired of elections where I have to vote for the best grade of lousy available.

Answer 2

A box which indicates 'no confidence in the present system of government' would be a good thing. I have an idea of how we could improve the number of people who participate in their own government

The present method of governing Britain is out of date

My idea is that we need a complete revamp in government. Not just change the people, but completely change the way we think about government.
When the current system of democracy was created the population of England was about a sixth of what it is now. So there were 659 MPs for about 10 million people, being a representation ratio of about 15000 to 1.

Now, we have 646 MPs, and about 60 million people giving a representation factor of about 93,000 to one.

So each person's representation has reduced by around 600%.
In other words, you now get about one sixth of the representation that a citizen in 1801 got. Another way of looking at this is to say that, in order to have the same level of representation that we had in 1801, we would need 3876 MPs.
This is obviously ludicrous. and is absolute evidence of a need for a change.

As the population has increased so dramatically, then the effectiveness and fairness of a central government has reduced.
What we now need is an increase in the power of local government, and a reduction in the power of central government.
I propose that we should bring back something akin to the parish councils. We should have constituencies of a maximum of 500 families. These constituencies should have total control over the lives of its constituents, with no interference from outside, They must provide all of their own facilities such as school, health care, pensions, police, ar anything which they feel that they need.
If they feel that they are too small for a particular project or service, then they negotiate with nearby constituencies to make suitable arrangements. There would be no higher level arbitrator. Full responsibility would rest at the local level.

The benefits of this are enormous. Firstly, everybody would know everybody else within a constituency, so when a problem arises it would be easy to get to the source, because it would be to everyone's benefit to do so. This alone would reduce terrorism and serious crime to a minimum. A sort of neighbourhood watch scheme in which everybody takes full part, and makes the decisions. The money presently spent on taxes, most of which disappears in red tape, civil servants' and MPs' salaries, waging war, and hundreds of other expenses from which the average citizen receives no benefit whatsoever, would be spent on directly benefiting the community, on projects voted for by the community.
It is most likely that taxes could be reduced to a fraction of what is presently paid, because all wastage would be readily identified. Everybody would participate in their own government, because they would be able to understand it, and would have a real voice.
There would be no need for secret services, or secrets of any kind, saving another fortune, and removing another load of confusion.

I'm sure you can identify many other benefits, and I'm also sure that any disadvantages could quickly be overcome.

Answer 3

Communist Russia used to have a "none of the above" option on voting slips. It was illegal not to vote. If no candidate got an overall majority of votes cast, they held another election with new candidates.

Answer 4

Totally agree this should be the case. Is annoying to be called apathetic when you actually are the complete opposite and probably have more of an understanding / passion than the people calling you it. Often I have voted (against my better judgement) purely for the best of a bad bunch.

Answer 5

You make a lot of sense, and it's nice to hear that there are still people who care. It surely would be nice if there were a, "None of the above" on the ballot! But there is something you can do. It's called, "A write-in candidate." They are counted, but rarely win, because not enough people 'write-in.' Hmm....?

Answer 6

I don't like any of the current political parties as I think they are all clones of each other but I would never waste my vote simply because there are millions of people in the world who are never given the chance to vote or even live in a democracy. Think of them the next time you want to waste your vote.

Answer 7

Next general election I am going to put a big X through all the names on the ballot slip. I would advise everyone to do the same. Then they might get the message.

Answer 8

In theory it would be nice, but if "none of the above" actually won who do you think would run the country or actually modify the system that you're voting against?

Answer 9

You have probably been watching an eighties film starring Richard Pryor called Brewster's Millions.

Answer 10

The problem with this is that "none of the above" would end up leading our country.