Vote for None of the Above

northknife

I don't know if this has been posted before but it would be great if we had this option on the polling card as was in the film Brewsters Millions.I just think that it dosen't matter who you vote for we are still going to get the same cretinous bunch of morons who are only going to look after their own interests rather than those of the nation.
I have no allegience to any party but makes me sad when people like that dumbass on the frontline a few weeks ago goes on about not voting for the blue shirts and that woman on the news last night saying how great Micheál Martin was and how she had always voted for F.F and how she said she always would.
Just think,
How many countries in the world do you think you could be convicted of defrauding the state and still be allowed to run for local and national office.
How many countries in the world could you drive the wrong way down a dual carriage way while intoxicated and still be able to run for public office.
And these are only a
couple of examles of how corrupt this country is.
If I was younger without the commitments I have I would be long gone from this country.

sonic85

but if everyone ticked that option FF would just remain in power?

Ghost Estate

sureley there is an independent who deserves a chance

doopa

Ghost Estate wrote: »

sureley there is an independent who deserves a chance

I think this is how I'll be voting - basically any/all of the independents standing in my constituency. I can't stand any of the parties - they are all reminants of thinking from a century (or two in some cases) ago.

I would like the none of the above/opt out/withdraw my consent to be ruled option though.

sonic85

doopa wrote: »

I think this is how I'll be voting - basically any/all of the independents standing in my constituency. I can't stand any of the parties - they are all reminants of thinking from a century (or two in some cases) ago.

I would like the none of the above/opt out/withdraw my consent to be ruled option though.

at the moment this is exactly how im going to vote. none of the main parties seem to have a decent plan to get us out of this mess - only hollow promises

northknife

Ghost Estate wrote: »

sureley there is an independent who deserves a chance

Just have a look at how many independent candidates in your constiunency have previuos with a party and are now saying they are independent and will vote with their "party" if and when they get in.
The guy in my main post that I was saying defrauded the state is running as an independent but is F.F.through and through and is a former F.F. councillor so how do you think he will vote in a close encounter that maybe of national importance in the next few years????

SafeSurfer

northknife wrote: »

I don't know if this has been posted before but it would be great if we had this option on the polling card as was in the film Brewsters Millions.I just think that it dosen't matter who you vote for we are still going to get the same cretinous bunch of morons who are only going to look after their own interests rather than those of the nation.
I have no allegience to any party but makes me sad when people like that dumbass on the frontline a few weeks ago goes on about not voting for the blue shirts and that woman on the news last night saying how great Micheál Martin was and how she had always voted for F.F and how she said she always would.
Just think,
How many countries in the world do you think you could be convicted of defrauding the state and still be allowed to run for local and national office.
How many countries in the world could you drive the wrong way down a dual carriage way while intoxicated and still be able to run for public office.
And these are only a
couple of examles of how corrupt this country is.
If I was younger without the commitments I have I would be long gone from this country.

Yes Brewster's Millions was a great film. However if you remember Brewster was elected mayor of New York under the platform none of the above.

You could of course spoil your vote but it would mean that you could not influence who is or is not elected.

Quackles

If you truly believe that, why not spoil your vote? It's the same thing. To me, however, spoiling your vote or not voting is akin to saying you're happy with the way things are now. If you don't use your voice to change it, don't bother complaining when the same thing happens again next time out. What i would suggest to disillusioned people is to lend your vote to an independent or party who haven't had a crack at it. If they don't perform, take it back next time out.

shaunsweb

We have all been told that we have a democratic right to vote in any election. How come then we don't have a box at the bottom of our voting slip to 'Vote for None of the Above' like in the film Brewster's Millions?

Don't get me wrong now; I'm not for getting rid of political parties & I'm all for democratic elections but I don't want to put the same people back into the dail that have been party to this disaster that ireland has been enduring for the past few years. In short; I do want to exercise my right to vote but I do not want to spoil my vote or waste it by voting for someone who I feel has not lived up to their promises of the past.

i'm sure readers of this thread will ask the obvious questions (what purpose would that serve or how much money would be wasted)? To try and answer these, let me try and explain where I am coming from so please bear with me:

This country has been economically ruined by a political institution that has been more interested in 'Mercs and Perks' than in regulating financial institutions (institutions which, surprise surprise have been involved in smaller but equally high profile controversies over the past 3 decades). These very institutions loan our lovely developer friends vast sums of money who then walk away when they cannot pay it back leaving ordinary irish people in the economic debris and importantly to face a hugh repayment bill ('to share the pain' was the term used at the time). Politics and politicians used to be held in esteem in this country (i'm sure those who have left the country or who are unemployed or who are hit by this USC, salary cuts etc..etc... might have a different opinion!). I for one am just about keeping my head above water but if things get any worse, well I don't know what the future will hold. Moral of the story is that this happened on everyone's watch. All sitting TD's and Senators are all equally responsible for allowing our financial institutions get away with such immoral practices and these are the very elected representatives who put their hand out and like Oliver Twist said 'yes I will award myself that pay rise' or claimed that extra 'Unvouched for expense'. There are too many people entrenched within the Dail who need to be cleaned out and they should be replaced by fresh faces from their own party who will try to put the shine & respect into the politics again.

To answer Question 1:
So what will my suggestion do: Well if everyone voted for None of the above, it would probably cause a constitutional crisis requiring a general election rerun but not before the policital parties holding extra-ordinary meetings to put forward new candidates (which might not be a bad thing)

And to the answer to Question 2 (how much money would be wasted?)

Certainly not as much as the government has wasted down that bottomless pit (also known as Anglo Irish)

For now though I can only get contentment and thank mother nature for the strong winds that have been successfully removing those abominations from the lamp posts thus allowing me to drive my car over them again and again with impunity (something they have been doing to us)

Thank you for taking the time to read

s

yeppydeppy

In the boards.ie/vote I've left myself as undecided as there isn't a single candidate in my constituency I want to vote for. I'm in Cork North West and I don't have confidence in any of them to be elected to assist in the running of our country.

Ghost Estate

None of the above == sure they're all the same == a vote of your approval for the status quo

ronkmonster

It's called spoiling your vote. If none of the candidates deserve your vote, run yourself. That might actually achieve something.

Akrasia

yeppydeppy wrote: »

In the boards.ie/vote I've left myself as undecided as there isn't a single candidate in my constituency I want to vote for. I'm in Cork North West and I don't have confidence in any of them to be elected to assist in the running of our country.

I'm with you on this. I'm in the Clare Constituency and there is nobody I would have confidence in voting for. I would love to have a none of the above option on the ballot. Will probably end up spoiling my vote for all the good that'll do.

A none of the above option, that was counted towards the quota would make excellent sense. If the none of the above vote got 'elected', there would need to be a by-election for the remaining seat where none of the candidates who ran the first time were permitted to run again.

If the none of the above vote got 2 quotas, then the by-election would be for 2 seats...

Imagine the candidates who would be encouraged to run for election in a by election where the electorate has specifically demanded an alternative to the incumbants? That would be so invigorating for irish politics (even if half of them would probably be crackpots)

Sad Professor

I'd very much support this idea. At the very least obvious protest votes should be counted instead of being thrown in with the rest of the mistakenly spoiled votes and forgotten about. Sometimes the status quo is the whole system. How are you supposed to register your disapproval with that system if there's no "none of the above" option? Surely there's an easier way than having to run yourself.

JBnaglfar

Ghost Estate wrote: »

None of the above == sure they're all the same == a vote of your approval for the status quo

I fail to see your logic. Maybe mindlessly voting for the sitting TDs, or not voting out of apathy could be seen as explicit or tacit approval of status quo. A declaration that the voter has no confidence in any of the candidates is hardly approval

Akrasia

ronkmonster wrote: »

It's called spoiling your vote. If none of the candidates deserve your vote, run yourself. That might actually achieve something.

Spoiling your vote doesn't affect the outcome of the poll.

It's hardly in the spirit of democracy to disenfranchise the people who are not happy with the candidates by telling them that they have the option to go outside and talk to the wall.

Ghost Estate

JBnaglfar wrote: »

I fail to see your logic. Maybe mindlessly voting for the sitting TDs, or not voting out of apathy could be seen as explicit or tacit approval of status quo. A declaration that the voter has no confidence in any of the candidates is hardly approval

You're letting others make up your mind for you.

Sierra Oscar

If you do not want to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot paper then why don't you consider running?

Sad Professor

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

If you do not want to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot paper then why don't you consider running?

Sure, but running for the Dáil is expensive. Success also depends a lot on name recognition which is why we have all these family dynasties. For people who feel left out and let down by the system, emigrating is a much cheaper and simpler option.

JBnaglfar

Ghost Estate wrote: »

You're letting others make up your mind for you.

Read the OP again:

Well if everyone voted for None of the above, it would probably cause a constitutional crisis requiring a general election rerun but not before the policital parties holding extra-ordinary meetings to put forward new candidates (which might not be a bad thing)

I know its an extreme hypothetical situation, but I take it that the OP is suggesting that if even a majority in one constituency vote 'none of the above' then no one would be elected to represent that constituency and new candidates would be required. That is far from the passive vote that you suggest.

I am not suggesting that this is feasible or should be implemented, but if it was it would not be a waste of a vote or approval of the status quo. I also agree that running as a candidate would be a much more useful option, although obviously not everyone could do that. Joining a party and trying to help candidates that you want to run get on the ticket would be a more practical solution.

ronkmonster

Akrasia wrote: »

Spoiling your vote doesn't affect the outcome of the poll.

It's hardly in the spirit of democracy to disenfranchise the people who are not happy with the candidates by telling them that they have the option to go outside and talk to the wall.

And neither would the 'None of the above option'. It's spoiling your vote with a different name. it would never happen that everyone would pick it anyway.

I suggested running themselves, not talking to a wall (which this option basically is)

If you're not happy run yourself or find a local candidate you want and help support them.

Joey the lips

In my opinion if you vote for non of the above for voting for the dominent party...

Why?

Take 10 people if 9 vote none of the above and 1 votes fianna fail then fianna fail has the majority.


Rather than trying to apply a useless logic to a situation why not look at who does work in your area and consider voteing local...

if not vote independent.... They need the quota

Sad Professor

Joey the lips wrote: »

In my opinion if you vote for non of the above for voting for the dominent party...

Why?

Take 10 people if 9 vote none of the above and 1 votes fianna fail then fianna fail has the majority.

No, you are registering a protest vote which will be counted. FF might get elected, but then they and everyone else will know that nine tenths of the people who voted in that constituency were opposed to all the candidates. So then FF or someone else will stop ignoring those people.

In the current system if you don't like any of the candidates your only option is to spoil your vote (which isn't counted), or not vote at all (in which case everyone assumes you are too lazy to vote). A "none of the above" option would show that a) you aren't apathetic, b) you know how to fill out your ballot properly, but c) you are apposed to any of the candidates being elected. How are you supposed to make this clear otherwise? Running yourself is not an option for everyone. What if you are unemployed, or of ill-health?

I really don't see why some people are so opposed to this idea. It's just another little box on the ballot paper.

ronkmonster

Sad Professor wrote: »

No, you are registering a protest vote which will be counted. FF might get elected, but then they and everyone else will know that nine tenths of the people who voted in that constituency were opposed to all the candidates. So then FF or someone else will stop ignoring those people.

In the current system if you don't like any of the candidates your only option is to spoil your vote (which isn't counted), or not vote at all (in which case everyone assumes you are too lazy to vote). A "none of the above" option would show that a) you aren't apathetic, b) you know how to fill out your ballot properly, but c) you are apposed to any of the candidates being elected. How are you supposed to make this clear otherwise? Running yourself is not an option for everyone. What if you are unemployed, or of ill-health?

I really don't see why some people are so opposed to this idea. It's just another little box on the ballot paper.

because it's the same as spoiling your vote and we have a way to handle that already.

And in the protest vote issue, well FF would still have gotten back into power for another 5 years, some protest :rolleyes:

Solair

I can sort of understand spoiling your vote in a system where you don't have much of a choice between candidates e.g. in the US where you get Democrat or Republican and very little else. Or, in France, or the UK etc where the systems are basically bipartisan/two party left/right and very predictable.

In Ireland, you've got preference voting, loads of candidates to choose from and plenty of independents who you can register your discontent with and you can even run yourself without THAT much difficulty and it doesn't have to be about name recognition, lots of money or anything else if you're clever enough to run a campaign properly.

In fact, in Ireland some of the most successful campaigns have been incredibly low budget. It's mostly about getting out there and making some noise, knocking on doors and putting yourself into the public domain. If you're too shy to do that, well then you won't get very far in politics.

Realistically, I don't think you'll find many other examples of a system that is more open and I cannot understand how anyone could possibly not find some way of participating.

You can go in and vote "1" for just a single independent candidate to give two fingers to the status quo if you like.

What would spoling your vote achieve?

Your spoilt vote counts for all of one day. Once the election is over, the politicians go forward into the Dail, forget about the nitty-gritty of election result and start influencing policy. Your spoilt vote might have had an impact during the count, but it will have zero impact politically.

If you vote for a candidate who is a pain in the rear end for the Government and establishment for 5 years, it counts for a HELL of a lot more than ticking "none of the above" or writing some message on your ballot paper.

The *only* thing that matters in a democratic system is bums on seats in the Dail. If your vote has no impact on that, then you very simply did not participate in the political process at all and have opted to support the status quo or be totally voiceless.

Sad Professor

ronkmonster wrote: »

because it's the same as spoiling your vote and we have a way to handle that already.

We do indeed. We throw them into the same pile as the incorrectly filled out ballots and forget about them. For what's it's worth, I wouldn't be that pushed about there being a "none of the above" option if deliberately spoiled votes were at least counted.

And in the protest vote issue, well FF would still have gotten back into power for another 5 years, some protest :rolleyes:

Yeah, but assuming FF don't turn the country into a dictatorship on the meantime, there would be another election 5 years later. Other candidates would run, FF might change its policies (or come up with some), etc, because they would see that there's large section of the electorate who aren't too lazy to vote but are dissatisfied with what is being offered.

Solair wrote:

I can sort of understand spoiling your vote in a system where you don't have much of a choice between candidates e.g. in the US where you get Democrat or Republican and very little else. Or, in France, or the UK etc where the systems are basically bipartisan/two party left/right and very predictable.

We don't have that much choice here though. FF and FG are practically identical. Labour are very weak and increasingly becoming the most populist of all the parties. After that you are left with the Shinners and other potentially crazy (but mostly honest) leftists. And many independents tend to be of the wannabe/ex-FFer or parish-pump variety.

Solair wrote:

If you vote for a candidate who is a pain in the rear end for the Government and establishment for 5 years, it counts for a HELL of a lot more than ticking "none of the above" or writing some message on your ballot paper.

Well, you may be right about this. And it probably is the best way to protest against the current three parties.

ronkmonster

Sad Professor wrote: »

We do indeed. We throw them into the same pile as the incorrectly filled out ballots and forget about them. For what's it's worth, I wouldn't be that pushed about there being a "none of the above" option if deliberately spoiled votes were at least counted.

Do you mean count what people have written on them?
eg. 100 voted for dustin.

Sad Professor

ronkmonster wrote: »

Do you mean count what people have written on them?
eg. 100 voted for dustin.

No, just count that they are deliberately spoiled. As opposed to accidentally spoiled (e.g. ticking the box).

Joey the lips

Sad Professor wrote: »

No, you are registering a protest vote which will be counted. FF might get elected, but then they and everyone else will know that nine tenths of the people who voted in that constituency were opposed to all the candidates. So then FF or someone else will stop ignoring those people.

In the current system if you don't like any of the candidates your only option is to spoil your vote (which isn't counted), or not vote at all (in which case everyone assumes you are too lazy to vote). A "none of the above" option would show that a) you aren't apathetic, b) you know how to fill out your ballot properly, but c) you are apposed to any of the candidates being elected. How are you supposed to make this clear otherwise? Running yourself is not an option for everyone. What if you are unemployed, or of ill-health?

I really don't see why some people are so opposed to this idea. It's just another little box on the ballot paper.

Now with due respect that sounds real stupid. Fianna fail wont care cause they are elected... and this cause is not popular enough to generate wide support amounst labour and fine gael suppoters as they know they will be in govt..


A far better idea would be to actually vote..... or at least vote senseable

CDfm

Akrasia wrote: »

Spoiling your vote doesn't affect the outcome of the poll.

It's hardly in the spirit of democracy to disenfranchise the people who are not happy with the candidates by telling them that they have the option to go outside and talk to the wall.

It doesnt but in Ireland you have a system of tallymen etc and TD's know who vote and who don't.

So a spoiled vote is a way of saying I took the trouble of voting but did not select a candidate worthy of me and if I come and ask a favour of course I voted for you.

While I do not agree with it I do understand it.

BrianD

northknife wrote: »

I don't know if this has been posted before but it would be great if we had this option on the polling card as was in the film Brewsters Millions.I just think that it dosen't matter who you vote for we are still going to get the same cretinous bunch of morons who are only going to look after their own interests rather than those of the nation.
I have no allegience to any party but makes me sad when people like that dumbass on the frontline a few weeks ago goes on about not voting for the blue shirts and that woman on the news last night saying how great Micheál Martin was and how she had always voted for F.F and how she said she always would.
Just think,
How many countries in the world do you think you could be convicted of defrauding the state and still be allowed to run for local and national office.
How many countries in the world could you drive the wrong way down a dual carriage way while intoxicated and still be able to run for public office.
And these are only a
couple of examles of how corrupt this country is.
If I was younger without the commitments I have I would be long gone from this country.

Possibly the stupidest suggestion that I have ever heard of and displays a high level of naivity and it's no wonder were in the mess we are in.

You vote to elect a government not to "not elect a government" as you are suggesting. It is idiotic to suggest that there is room for some sort of a protest vote option. Not only that, it's anti-democratic.

The bottom line is that people do need to wise up and start making voting decisions based on policies and a party manifesto that in their judgement makes the most sense.

The other thing to remember is that if we don't start wising up then we get the government we deserve. Remember that the FF party was voted in 3 times in row. In fact, they still have a democratic mandate to be still siting the Dail if they had the balls to do it. We didn't object when Bertie was in charge with his disasterous economic policies because we were all deluded but when reality bites we want a revolution. Hopefully this time round people will make informed choices.

Plus if you feel that strongly about the current options available then there is every opportunity for you to stand and form your own party. Even with the Taoiseachs salary knocked down to €200K the money is still good!

doopa

BrianD wrote: »

Plus if you feel that strongly about the current options available then there is every opportunity for you to stand and form your own party. Even with the Taoiseachs salary knocked down to €200K the money is still good!

Define every opportunity.

I say this cos I reckon some have more opportunities than others, and I have a sneaky suspision that I personally don't have the right family name to be successful in politics.

More seriously - electing a government. I prefer to see voting as consenting to be ruled. By not voting, spoiling your vote, voting none of the above etc then you are removing your consent to be governed. I would imagine that should this kind of thing be allowed and should it happen it would be absolute chaos but nevertheless the option should be there. Having said that the Belgians seem to be doing alright, or did they finally manage to sort that whole "we have no government" problem out.

ronkmonster

doopa wrote: »

I prefer to see voting as consenting to be ruled. By not voting, spoiling your vote, voting none of the above etc then you are removing your consent to be governed.

That's not how things work though. If you don't vote, you don't use your opportunity to have your say. Nobody will care that you don't consent.

doopa

ronkmonster wrote: »

That's not how things work though. If you don't vote, you don't use your opportunity to have your say. Nobody will care that you don't consent.

Perhaps that last post wasn't clear. I would prefer rather than I prefer. The rest of that paragraph remaining the same. Hopefully the intention is clearer now.

I still care about my lack of consent
Is there not some kind of threshold that the candidates have to achieve? Or is this based on the number of votes cast, as opposed to eligible voters, or something?

Sad Professor

I can understand why governments aren't keen to implement this option. The suggestion that they wouldn't care is quite wrong IMO. Many such votes would be viewed be as a popular rejection of the whole system and would threaten an elected government's claim to represent the people. It's easier for governments to paint discontented citizens as being apathetic or as being messers who spoil their vote for a laugh than it is to acknowledge them. FF mightn't care, but that says more about FF than it does about political parties in general.

But as suggested earlier, the easiest way to register your protest in a multi-party system is to vote for a fringe candidate regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Thanks to PR they have some hope of being elected and may help shift politics in a certain direction. However, not everyone will see it this way. Many people may, for example, view a vote for Joe Higgins as being a vote for Joe Higgins as Taoiseach and decide not to vote at all, or to spoil their vote, which I agree is pointless because it isn't counted.

And, doopa, yeah candidates have to reach a quota to be elected. The quota is decided by the number of seats in that constituency. It can all seem a bit complicated, but basically in a three seater the quota would be one fourth of all votes plus one, in a four seater it would be one fifth of all votes plus one, and so on.

Akrasia

Sad Professor wrote: »

But as suggested earlier, the easiest way to register your protest in a multi-party system is to vote for a fringe candidate regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Thanks to PR they have some hope of being elected and may help shift politics in a certain direction. However, not everyone will see it this way. Many people may, for example, view a vote for Joe Higgins as being a vote for Joe Higgins as Taoiseach and decide not to vote at all, or to spoil their vote, which I agree is pointless because it isn't counted.

The risk of registering a protest vote is that the guy you vote for might actually get elected. You said 'regardless of whether you agree with them or not'. It's a pretty sad state of affairs that we are forced to run the risk of accidentally electing a nutter to the dail just to avoid having no voice in the election what so ever. (spoilt votes non voters don't get counted)

And, doopa, yeah candidates have to reach a quota to be elected. The quota is decided by the number of seats in that constituency. It can all seem a bit complicated, but basically in a three seater the quota would be one fourth of all votes plus one, in a four seater it would be one fifth of all votes plus one, and so on.

If there was actual electoral reform, a vote for none of the above should be included in the quota required to elect someone. (meaning that the number of votes required to elect the other candidates would increase in as a greater percentage of the overall votes are counted)

If the option 'none of the above' gets enough votes to reach a quota, then one of the seats in the election should be left vacant and a by election held with new candidates.

The people most likely to choose none of the above are those who put least emphasis on the crony politics (those who vote for the same party every time regardless of the policies or the candidates, or vote for the guy who 'fixed the potholes') Currently these well considered voters are being excluded from having a voice.

Given that the theme of the current election appears to be 'democratic reform', It would be an idea that is worth exploring a little further, especially if the Seanaid is to be scrapped, it should be even more important that the representatives in the dail are high quality and actually represent the views of the electors.

bonkey

BrianD wrote: »

You vote to elect a government not to "not elect a government" as you are suggesting. It is idiotic to suggest that there is room for some sort of a protest vote option. Not only that, it's anti-democratic.

The current system is that we vote to elect candidates from the choices available to us.

The intention of the "none of the above" vote is to say "give me other choices".

There is nothing undemocratic in saying that I do not accept the least-worst option and would like other options presented to me.

Joey the Lips wrote:

In my opinion if you vote for non of the above for voting for the dominent party...

Why?

Take 10 people if 9 vote none of the above and 1 votes fianna fail then fianna fail has the majority.

Not quite.

If 9 out of 10 people spoil their votes, then this is what happens.

In a system with "none of the above", the seat in question would remain unoccupied, and an election re-held. Arguably, the candidates who stood first time round couldn't stand again...as they were "voted out".

Theory aside, I don't think it would work though. Not enough people would want to do it...and even if they did, what would be the end result? The same parties would present different faces...which wouldn't really change anything. The biggest effect would probably be that it would drastically reduce the number of Independants on the ballot.

bonkey

Sad Professor wrote: »

And, doopa, yeah candidates have to reach a quota to be elected.

Yes, but its technically possible to be elected without reaching the quota.

As the "rounds" progress where no-one reaches the quota, the lowest-votedf candidate is removed and their vote redistributed. Once the number of remaining candidates equals the remaining seats, they are elected, regardless of whether or not they reached (or could reach) the quota.

Take a "simple" example.
2 candiates, 1 seat, 10 votes.
Quota = votes / (seats + 1) + 1 = 6

Imagine then that 5 votes are spoiled. Candidate A receives 3 first prefs, and candidate B receives 2. No-one has indicated a second pref, so there are no transferrable votes.

Round 1 - No-one has quota, so the candidate with the lowest count (B) is eliminated. Their votes are redistributed according to the next preference. They have no next preference, so nothing to distribute.

Round 2 - No-one has quota. There is 1 seat and 1 remaing candidate, however, so candidate A is elected.

In a "none of the above" situation, there would be effectively 3 candidates (A, B, and No-one). Round 1 would go as above. Round 2 would see A against No-one, with A eliminated as having fewest votes. The seat would then go to "no-one".

ronkmonster

bonkey wrote: »

Arguably, the candidates who stood first time round couldn't stand again...as they were "voted out".

Sounds very democratic, stopping people from running :rolleyes:

The parties shouldn't be obliged to provide new candidates if you don't like them. It's up to you to run or find someone that you would like to vote for and helping them canvass. This none of the above is a lazy choice for people who want another option but not willing to do anything themselves.

Sad Professor

Akrasia wrote: »

The risk of registering a protest vote is that the guy you vote for might actually get elected. You said 'regardless of whether you agree with them or not'. It's a pretty sad state of affairs that we are forced to run the risk of accidentally electing a nutter to the dail just to avoid having no voice in the election what so ever. (spoilt votes non voters don't get counted)

I agree, but even if they are elected, what harm are they going to do? The next government is going to be FG/Lab, that's a given at this stage. All this talk of a leftist coalition is nonsense. The only question is what party will have the majority which I don't think is going to make any discernible difference except for who becomes Taoiseach. Anyone not voting for FG/Lab is voting for the next opposition in a parliament that has little power. Like Solair said, as long as they are a pain in the arse to the government they will have served their purpose.

If there was actual electoral reform, a vote for none of the above should be included in the quota required to elect someone. (meaning that the number of votes required to elect the other candidates would increase in as a greater percentage of the overall votes are counted)

Personally I'd be happy enough with it just being counted as a blank or spoiled vote without it necessarily having an impact on the other candidates. When people tell me that they think all the candidates are the same and that they can't find anyone to vote for, I always tell them to them to spoil their vote. But since these votes aren't counted there's not much point. A protest vote is very often a protest against the entire system and not just the available candidates. But I still think people should spoil their vote rather than stay at home.

Akrasia

ronkmonster wrote: »

Sounds very democratic, stopping people from running :rolleyes:

They would already have run and were not deemed electable.
An election is basically a job interview. If you advertise for a job and 15 people apply but none of them are qualified for a job, you are not obliged to hire one of them, you can simply re-advertise the job and advise 'previous applicants need not apply'

As our electoral system currently is set up, even if none of the candidates are suitable, the seats are still filled. Given the performance of the last government it is no longer acceptable to allow incompetent people to sit in our DAIL. The seats would be better off empty than filled by people who are not competent

The parties shouldn't be obliged to provide new candidates if you don't like them.

The parties are supposed to represent the people, if they can't find candidates that represent the people then they don't deserve to get elected.