Voting NOTA for General Elections

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

A defacing of thr ballot is the best option right now to show disapproval.
We need an actual place on the ballot to select none of the above.

if it was put in as an option, what happens if enough people or even a majority vote NOTA?

[j.o.e]

A defacing of thr ballot is the best option right now to show disapproval.
We need an actual place on the ballot to select none of the above.

if it was put in as an option, what happens if enough people or even a majority vote NOTA?

Stop making sense Duane .... These posers on their high horses haven't thought that far yet.

[sMASH]

Everything is the same as before: the CANDIDATE with the highest number of votes gets the position. The nota numbers are used for parties to do some introspection as to how to win themover... Provided the nota are significant.
If they aren't significant then there is nothing added.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Everything is the same as before: the CANDIDATE with the highest number of votes gets the position. The nota numbers are used for parties to do some introspection as to how to win themover... Provided the nota are significant.
If they aren't significant then there is nothing added.

if the NOTA vote is going to be insignificant, why bother to make it an option?

it should only be made into an option if it is an option that a significant portion of the voters wish to have.
If that portion is insignificant then why ask for it on the ballot?

[Slartibartfast]

Duane you not making sense. How are you to gauge the significance of an option if it is not an option. Also, if numerical significance was a deciding criteria then it would be impossible to introduce new choices or options and therefore impossible to develop the system further.

But the biggest idiots of all are those saying that the NOTA option would be insignificant even if it were officially included and then asking what will happen if it wins. Funny nobody bothered about what would happen if Abu Bakr party won in the last election.

Anyway, allow me to break it down very simply in point form for the uninitiated.
- Currently the voters that are dissatisfied with all of the options available have no say. Damned if we vote and damned if we don't.
- NOTA is an option for those dissatisfied with both parties that do not want to be counted as apathetic.
- The difference with NOTA and voting for a minority party is that your votes cannot be used to support someone else if you vote NOTA.

As for what would happen if the NOTA vote won; that needs to be debated and open to future amendments depending on demand. However, that is jumping the gun. It needs to be a viable option or have enough support first otherwise it won't be debated.

A lot of people here don't understand that even the largest changes have small beginnings and look at the beginning of something new and are quick to say it doesn't make sense.

But before you criticise the NOTA option ask yourself are you satisfied with the way things are now?
Do you think being allowed a choice once every five years between two known corrupt parties (3 in chaguanas west) is democratic enough for you?
Are you satisfied only being able to pick the "better of two evils"? If yes does it matter how bad the better choice is or just once they are better?
What are you expectations of a good party? Is "not being the worst party" really how you judge adequacy.

Any idiot could cry down an idea. Why not present some alternatives to tackle the issues? NOTA is not meant to be the "be all end all" so stop treating it like that. Stop being little b!tches and actually join the debate that this is meant to spawn. Throw some ideas into the mix.

[Slartibartfast]

The nota numbers are used for parties to do some introspection as to how to win themover...

This is a lot better than the nothing they currently do. Also,again saying there should be no NOTA option because you think it is insignificant is basically saying you don't think minorities deserve to be represented.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ comprehension is not your strong point I see.

I didn't say it should or shouldn't be an option. I asked him if he thought it was insignificant then why would he want it as an option to be counted.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

The nota numbers are used for parties to do some introspection as to how to win themover...

This is a lot better than the nothing they currently do. Also,again saying there should be no NOTA option because you think it is insignificant is basically saying you don't think minorities deserve to be represented.

this minority could not put forward a candidate?

[sickbad]

What if the two party system is an inevitable fight between the ting and yang.

What if the voter had true power to recognize this and come together for something completely different, would this seemingly third party put aside their differences for something new.

No one is talking about what would happen if a NOTA vote won, in some countries it calls a new election with fresh candidates.

I propose a deadlock in tt if nota spoke out. Hold a public referendum in the stadium with representatives put forth by the people, we are talking cream of crop doctors engineers sociologists economists etc. from UWI

Train real politicians on how to manage resources and then vote on those individuals abilities to hold down the course of the ship.

NOT on how much personality you have or if you are woman or how not shade of black you are..

I'd be totally comfortable voting for an representative less, committee type of professionals against the status quo back and forth this and that party rule.

The video in this thread makes sense, the two party system is inevitable.

[Lance]

Hamel-Smith's underlying logic is solid but his method and timing is totally idiotic.

We sat on our hands for the entire 5 year period and failed to voice our concerns over the campaigning period. We allowed hype and noise to distract us.

Now it's time to vote and his solution is to deface the ballot as a sign of dissatisfaction.

Insane.

[sMASH]

Nota numbers are only important if they are comparable to the numbers of the winning candidate. It would not make one candidate loose to another.

But it should be used to account for the portion of society who would like to exercise their franchise but are not impressed by any candidates on the ballot.
Those numbers are potential swing votes.
That coupled with the numbers of persons not voting at all can potentially be a voting untapped market.

We have a fair idea about how much in any area are PNM, Unc, don't care to vote. We don't have an idea of the portion of all those who would like to vote but are not impressed.

It may be a small portion of that area, a small portion from each group, or a very large portion.


Any how u take it, u wouldn't know how much of them there are unless u counted them.

And u can only count them if u put an option for them.



I had already done this ten years ago. I wanted to participate in democracy, but the candidates presented by all parties were not worthy of my vote. I had no confidence an any of them.

And the arguement is that I needed to vote in the party.
If that was the case, don't put a person on the ballot, put the party. I was to vote for someone to represent me, and no one there could have done a good job of it.

[Redman]

Just make the Election Day ballot a mechanism to collect more info...referendum like.

Instead of just selecting a party...we should be able to vote on policy and big projects like the rr or causeway.


But a NOTA. will not say anything new...there is support for a third party...that's known...

But the party has to have a presence...not show once the election bell is called.

[Slartibartfast]

this minority could not put forward a candidate?

Lol, you serious? The minority should not have to put forth a candidate. There is no indication that the minority is made up of professional politicians. Why should we have to do their job? My taxes pay their salaries and I deserve honest and fair representation.

NOTA is for people that believe those being presented to us are not adequate for the job that we are paying them to do. Besides, I'm too busy doing my own full time job to get that involved in politics. It sounds like you didn't think your question through.

Hear what, give me a $40,000/ month stipend and pay all of my campaigning costs starting from January 2019 and I will put myself forth as the minority representative for the next elections.

Some of the other ideas here seem very interesting though. I like the idea of being able to vote on policies and stuff. This has a lot of potential for both bad and good but if used properly it can achieve what our current system can't.

EDIT: I noticed you didn't bother to answer any of the questions I asked so I am just posting them below for ease of reference.

But before you criticise the NOTA option ask yourself are you satisfied with the way things are now?
Do you think being allowed a choice once every five years between two known corrupt parties (3 in chaguanas west) is democratic enough for you?
Are you satisfied only being able to pick the "better of two evils"? If yes does it matter how bad the better choice is or just once they are better?
What are you expectations of a good party? Is "not being the worst party" really how you judge adequacy.

[Slartibartfast]

Hamel-Smith's underlying logic is solid but his method and timing is totally idiotic.

We sat on our hands for the entire 5 year period and failed to voice our concerns over the campaigning period. We allowed hype and noise to distract us.

Now it's time to vote and his solution is to deface the ballot as a sign of dissatisfaction.

Insane.

The idea of a NOTA vote is not Hamel-Smith's idea. The fact that he now supports it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Now what do you think "we" could have done differently over the past five years? I only ask because it seems as though recent history is poised to repeat itself, as it does every political cycle. So what I am really asking is what do you think we can do differently over the next five years to change out political landscape for the better? I like the train of thought that you are beginning to develop and would like to see you elaborate a bit further.

[Monk BANzai]

SILLY SEASON!!!!!

[Lance]

Hamel-Smith's underlying logic is solid but his method and timing is totally idiotic.

We sat on our hands for the entire 5 year period and failed to voice our concerns over the campaigning period. We allowed hype and noise to distract us.

Now it's time to vote and his solution is to deface the ballot as a sign of dissatisfaction.

Insane.

The idea of a NOTA vote is not Hamel-Smith's idea. The fact that he now supports it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Now what do you think "we" could have done differently over the past five years? I only ask because it seems as though recent history is poised to repeat itself, as it does every political cycle. So what I am really asking is what do you think we can do differently over the next five years to change out political landscape for the better? I like the train of thought that you are beginning to develop and would like to see you elaborate a bit further.

Sorry for the confusion. It was not my intention to insinuate that a no vote or NOTA strategy was Hamel-Smith's brainchild. It honestly doesn't matter where the idea germinated.

The fact that he now supports it is COMPLETELY relevant, especially regarding the way we think. We are a people that subscribe to escapism. We ignore the reality by basking in naive distractions until facing the reality is immediately mandatory. Politicans know this and they have perfected the art of doing so. Just look at the campaign trail. Hamel-Smith comes on the eve of an election to call for an express of dissatisfaction? A NOTA vote is a mechanism of last resort and should be encouraged only after we have exhausted all other avenues to express dissatisfaction.

I ask you, what have we done? Have the masses engaged in any meaningful effort to show both parties that we are unhappy with their positions on governance? I guess its much easier to walk into a polling station and spoil a ballot.

This leads to your second question. What could we have done? My ideas are admittedly ideological, but feasible on some level. We need to sever blind party allegiance based on race, geography or family tendency. Our support for political ideas, plans and actions should be based solely on merit.

For example, if a government issues a 1.4 billion dollar contract for the construction of a water recycling plant and the contractor hires itself to do independent water quality testing, YOU should be upset and demand accountability REGARDLESS of who you initially voted for.

This needs to be operationalized through autonomous watchdog type groups that the masses pay attention to and actively take part in. These groups exist in Trinidad (to some extent) but they are voiceless because WE fail to give them the voice. We seem to think that the political landscape operates like market mechanisms, in that they are self correcting (providing that you believe the markets are self correcting).

Politicians needs to be kept in check and held accountable for their actions. And this is not something that you do once every 5 years. I wonder if you would hire someone to run your company and come back a half decade later to see how they have done.

This is my point.

[Slartibartfast]

Good stuff! I agree with almost everything you said. In fact I actually agree that in an ideal situation, voting NOTA should be a last resort. The problem is that (as you said) voting NOTA is easier that the other alternatives and people tend to rather trying the easier options first.

Also, using the example you presented, what can these watchdog groups actually do? Also, what is to stop the contractor from paying off an independent tester? I've only been paying attention to the politics for about a decade now so I'm asking as someone that is relatively young and unaware of all avenues of effective protest.

I believe that the only way a difference can be made is by putting honest people in charge. And as the saying that I just came up with goes "Show me a politician that can call himself (or herself) honest and I will show you a liar"

It seems almost impossible to make a difference when they hold all of the money and power. Many believe that they can't make a difference and would rather not waste the effort to try. The only reason I encourage the NOTA vote is because it allows the people who would not do anything otherwise to do something. It may not be significant, it may not make a difference, but it's a start and it can't be worse that doing nothing. At worst (and I admit most likely) it will be the same as doing nothing, in which case they have nothing to lose.