Should there be a 'none of the above' box to tick on a balot card?

Question

Should people who don't agree with any of their candidates be able to express this democratically?

Answer 1

yes by not answering

Answer 2

It's a good idea to have a none of the above box because:

a) if somebody marks that box, no one can claim this was a result of voter apathy or voter satisfaction. At least the voter would have gone to the trouble of going there and marking that box.

b) It is better than the alternative, which is to "spoil one's vote". This serves the same purpose but suggests that the voter who did not like any of the candidates, was a vandal rather than a thinking or conscientious person.

Answer 3

It's an idea often expressed, but we need to agree on what to do with the result. If voting was compulsory but you had the opportunity to register an abstention, what would happen if there were more abstentions than votes for any candidate? I'd suggest having no MP and a 25% reduction in tax. It wouldn't be long before we had no politicians.

Answer 4

You got it. There really should.
I've often looked at the options and, well, I just shake my head! Sometimes it is exasperating, the quality that we are supposed to decide, who amongst this rabble is to represent us.
I think most of these are in it for what THEY can get out of it before any other consideration.
But after saying all that, I've often wondered why the heck can't I do it? I do not have any other agenda. I really think that I could really do positive things within the community that'll actually be of use. Instead of the flippin' politically correct brigade dictating to the vast majority of people what they can and can't do. Without consulting the people who they were elected to represent in the first place.

Answer 5

YES! and voting should be compulsory. People refuse to vote because they feel there's a lack of choice, or because they cannot find someone/thing they agree with, but their abstention is hidden amongst the apathy of those who can't be bothered to vote. Forcing people to participate in the system that many died to ensure we have - with a 'none of the above' option - would force politicians to accept that low turn out figures are a protest and NOT always simple apathy.

Answer 6

Yes, I wont vote until one is introduced, and the people who say spoiling a ballot is just as good are talking crap
I should be free to express my dislike for ALL the parties not just some of them

Answer 7

You don't need a 'none of the above' tickbox. You just don't vote for any of the people listed. But don't put the ballot card in blank, because that really really annoys the readers, those poor people who have to count the votes once the ballot is closed.

Answer 8

Only if they hold a new election with different candidates if 'none of the above' wins. Otherwise know one will notice.

Answer 9

Absolutely.
I believe that everyone should make their political views known but that does not mean you have to vote for any candidate if they don't measure up to your needs.
Be one hell of a shock for the third raters running the country now.

Answer 10

No, if you dont care enough to vote for the leader of your country then you shouldn't be recognized. Clearly Mccain and Rudy dont represent the republican party's best interest but there's no way I want Hillary or Obama to be my president. You obviously agree with one candidate on more issues than the other.

Answer 11

We will probably get this if UK decides to make voting at elections compulsory as they to in OZ, where I understand you can put your X in a slot which says 'none of the above'.

In UK if you add something or write anything on your ballot paper, it is void.