None of The Above.
Discuss issues related to the politics of the UK, such as the actions of any MP, any current or potential law, or any other factor affecting the British political system.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 21-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- New Member
- Posts: 8
None of The Above.The local elections showed a record low in turnout figures. Is this because people don't care, are too lazy to vote, or because there are no candidates worth voting for?
Is it not time we had the option to say this last on the ballot paper?
Sign the petition here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/620 -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Location: Viridian City
- Posts: 3,580
Re: None of The Above.I don't think it's to do with not wanting to vote for anyone. An apathy towards partisan politics is shown by low turnout, so there is no need to formally tell people you don't like the parties, as this is evidenced by you not bothering going to vote.
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Leeds
- Posts: 2,553
Re: None of The Above.This doesn't mean anything. If anything it means that there is very little difference in the stance of the main parties on the main issues. This is very good for society - the wealth of evidence supporting the benefits or costs of a particular social or economic policy is of much greater quantity and in greater depth than it has been historically.
It is a truly dangerous characteristic of humans to assume they know better than others. Chances are if you would like to vote for a candidate who promised great 'change', you would be wise to learn more about comparative statics within a society and an economy. We also live in a society where the sheer costs of implementing policies of 'change' alone far outweigh any potential benefits, and dynamic inconsistency develops, further making policy decisions problematic.
In summary, spend more time reading up to date evidence, not Karl Marx, or Margaret Thatcher's biography. What do you think governments do in cabinet meetings? Discuss ideologies? Give me a break. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- New Member
- Posts: 8
Re: None of The Above.They can, but it is a meaningless gesture, it is not considered to hold any significance.(Original post by Martyn*)
Can't people just spoil their ballot?
Not voting at all indicates that you don't care who gets in, but there are an increasing number of people who would like neither the devil nor the deep.Last edited by Hairyloon; 08-05-2012 at 02:17. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Group Staff
- The square root of rope is string.
- Location: The South
- Posts: 8,156
Re: None of The Above.I'd change my name to "None of the above" by Deed Poll and end up running the country.
In seriousness, apathy is not likely to go away just by giving people the option to be apathetic at a polling station instead of on their sofas. For most there is simply no incentive to vote, no care about the consequences, no reason to trust party literature. For them, taking 20 minutes to visit a polling station is simply a waste of time. What does adding "None of the above" change about that? -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- New Member
- Posts: 8
Re: None of The Above.There is nothing apathetic about deciding not to vote for someone who is not worthy of a vote.(Original post by Dez)
In seriousness, apathy is not likely to go away just by giving people the option to be apathetic at a polling station instead of on their sofas. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Group Staff
- The square root of rope is string.
- Location: The South
- Posts: 8,156
I would argue that apathy is more about the voter's outlook than their ballot choice. It's quite possible to apathetically vote Labor for example, if you're simply voting because your best friend told you to or something. That happens quite a bit.(Original post by Hairyloon)
There is nothing apathetic about deciding not to vote for someone who is not worthy of a vote.
My issue with adding None of the above is that it would do very little to cure such apathy, and would probably be a waste of time. -
- Reputation:
- Adored and Respected Member
- Posts: 420
Re: None of The Above.An election without the None of the above option is simply a sham. Of course one might argue that voting turnout is an indication of the same. Yet the problem is that without NOTA, the blame is pinned on the voter rather than on the politicians/system when actually it is the reverse that is often the case.
-
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,561
Re: None of The Above.Why would they bother turning up to vote just to tick a NOTA box?(Original post by Hairyloon)
The local elections showed a record low in turnout figures. Is this because people don't care, are too lazy to vote, or because there are no candidates worth voting for?
Is it not time we had the option to say this last on the ballot paper?
Sign the petition here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/620 -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Posts: 198
Re: None of The Above.I agree with the "none of the above option" because right now it’s either you vote for some elitist politician who honestly has more in common with his rivals (I'm talking about Labour, Lib Dem and conservative politicians here) than he does with you or you don't vote at all.
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- New Member
- Posts: 8
Re: None of The Above.So how much time would it actually waste?(Original post by Dez)
My issue with adding None of the above is that it would do very little to cure such apathy, and would probably be a waste of time.
Other than for those choosing that option, where it is their choice to waste it.
Here in this constituency, the seat is totally safe. One might argue that having an election at all is a waste of time.
Put another way: why not have the option?
"Because it might not help" is a pretty pathetic answer.
