Reply to post: Re: You get what you deserve whenever choices are limited and rigged for status quo continuity?

Look out, law abiding folk: UK’s Counter-Extremism Bill slithers into view

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: You get what you deserve whenever choices are limited and rigged for status quo continuity?

> all future elections should have a candidate standing as "None of the Above",

Indeed. The current "protest" method of simply not voting is not enough, as that may be interpreted in a number of ambiguous ways, and often benefits the group(s) with the most votes.

For me, the minimum standard for a viable and truly representative vote is the Usenet system. To summarise (and extrapolate where necessary):

* Anybody can stand as a candidate.

* Anybody can propose a candidate.

* Anybody who is interested can vote.

* Anybody who is not interested can not vote (Australia, I'm looking at you).

* A vote may be cast FOR a candidate.

* A vote may be cast AGAINST a candidate.

* Where applicable, maintaining the status quo is an explicit option which can be voted FOR or AGAINST.

* Votes must be for a single proposal (single candidate / group of candidates, so as many votes as there are parties in the election may be cast--for or against, obviously).

* Votes are not transferable. So if I voted FOR John, he cannot form a coalition with Peter to bring him into power. Peter has to have made it on his own right.

* Likewise, if John has promised X, that's a contract. He must attempt his best to do X and he must not do Y unless that was also promised, or a new vote is cast.

Anyway, that's my minimum standard. Anything else is not participatory or representative enough.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon