How to support NOTA by proxy at this years Electoral Reform Society AGM

September 3, 2014 Leave a comment

NOTA UK ( https://nota-uk.org/ ) has tabled a policy motion for consideration at this year’s AGM of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS).

The motion tabled is: “The ERS should actively advocate the inclusion of a ‘None of the Above’ option that will require a new election to be called if more than 50% of ballots cast choose that option.”

If we act together we have a real chance of persuading the ERS to start officially campaigning for a ‘None of the Above’ option with teeth on UK ballot papers. NOTA is something that is long overdue in the UK and essential in any true democracy.

The ERS is the most influential electoral reform advocacy group in the UK and having them adopt NOTA will boost our cause substantially. At last year’s AGM the total number of votes per motion tabled was around 250 each. Our facebook group alone has the ability to get the motion carried if we act now and get our postal/proxy votes in on time.

Your postal/proxy vote needs to reach the Electoral Reform society by 10am on 11th September 2014. So there is still enough time to make a substantial impact if we act quickly!

All you need to do to vote is to join the ERS for as little as £1. Go to this link to join: https://electoral-reform.netdonor.net/ea-action/action…

The AGM booklet and proxy/postal voting form will be sent to you, it is also available for download from our facebook group via this link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/notauk/10152221477846986/

Be sure to send the completed form to: Electoral Reform Services, FREEPOST ND6352, London N1 1BR, to arrive no later than 10.00 am on Thursday 11 September 2014.

Jamie Stanley and Alexander Scott will be attending the meeting on behalf of NOTA UK so you can nominate either of us to be your proxy voter on the form. Alternatively leave that part of the form blank if you trust the chair of the meeting to act on your behalf.

Nothing will change in UK politics until it is possible to withhold consent in a meaningful, registered way. This is an excellent opportunity for all those who understand this truth to have their voices heard.

Please take a few minutes of your day to help can get this motion carried and push forward our campaign to get the democratic pre-requisite of NOTA on the UK ballot paper. Many thanks in advance.

NOTA UK’s policy proposal to be debated by ERS at their AGM

August 30, 2014 Comments: 3

As part of our ongoing concerted efforts to install actual democracy in the UK, NOTA UK recently submitted a policy proposal to be debated by the Electoral Reform Society at its AGM on 13th September 2014. It has been accepted for debate – but, unsurprisingly, the stubborn and extremely set in its ways ERS leadership has recommended that its members reject the proposal. Below is NOTA UK founder Jamie Stanley’s email to ERS chief executive Katie Ghose dissecting their official position point by point:

“Dear Katie,

Please find below NOTA UK’s point by point dissection of the ERS response to our policy proposal:

“ERS believes in promoting positive reforms that are ‘pro-politics’ and aimed at modernising our democracy.”

Then it should be supporting NOTA UK’s campaign to get a ‘None of the Above’ option on the UK ballot paper, as that is exactly what it is.

“We believe that NOTA does not sufficiently address the bigger underlying problems and that the adoption of STV and other serious reforms are a more profound means of improving our democracy.”

The biggest underlying problem with our ‘democracy’ is that it is not remotely representative. Not least of all, because it does not include a mechanism to allow voters to withhold consent in a meaningful way. Consent is central to the concept of democracy – if you cannot withhold it, consent is immaterial. Abstaining does not constitute withholding consent, it is simply not participating and can be dismissed as ‘voter apathy’ with no further analysis. Spoiling the ballot is not withholding consent either as all spoilt votes are lumped in with those spoilt in error, the corresponding figure is therefore meaningless as a measure of voter discontent. The only way to meaningfully and formally withhold consent is via a formal NOTA option on the ballot paper. As such, it is a democratic pre-requisite. It would therefore be achievable if enough people understood this and were calling for it – because to continue to argue against NOTA in that context would be to argue against democracy itself. By contrast, all the reforms you are campaigning for are simply desirable improvements, not an essential device that is central to the concept of democracy, as NOTA is. This is why NOTA should be the logical start point for any and all electoral reformists. It is achievable in the short to mid term, with the right level of support and campaigning, and could therefore open the door to the further reforms that the ERS seeks – once in place.

“We believe that the real and wide-ranging choices for voters offered by STV should help to re-engage voters with a stronger sense that voting is worthwhile, rather than a desire to absent themselves from the process by ticking a ‘None of the Above’ box.”

Ticking a NOTA box doesn’t ‘absent’ oneself from the process. You’re thinking of not voting at all or spoiling the ballot (see above). Registering a vote for NOTA would simultaneously signal your active decision to participate in the process AND your formal rejection of all the candidates on offer. In other words, it represents official, recognised withholding of consent.

“Voters do already have the option of submitting a blank or ‘spoiled’ ballot paper which are also counted and recorded – though we recognise this is not precisely the same and perhaps does not offer the same means of expressing dissatisfaction.”

Spoiling the ballot is not remotely comparable to NOTA, as explained above. In no way does spoiling the ballot or not voting at all constitute formally withholding consent, something that it is essential to be able to do in any true democracy.

“To date ERS hasn’t taken a stance for or against NOTA, preferring to focus on a range of other reforms.”

That’s not true. You explicitly stated to me at an ERS fundraising dinner in 2013 that the Society considers NOTA to be a negative reform and therefore does not support it – despite the fact that, clearly, many of its members understand how and why it is inherently positive and do support it.

“NOTA appears to give a clear measure of political disillusionment but no real answer as to what to do about that disillusionment.”

Also not true. Our policy proposal includes a clear method for dealing with the logistics of a NOTA ‘win’. Specifically, a re-run general election and/or constituency specific by-elections, held no less than 6 months after the initial election and no more than 12 months after (time periods up for debate), with the 2nd placed live candidate or party taking office on a pro tem basis in the meantime. This would ensure political stability while the logistics of the re-run / by-elections are put in place and avoid the possibility of voter fatigue stemming from instant re-runs. A NOTA option with no ramifications for the result if it gets the most votes (the only token form of NOTA currently practised elsewhere in the world) is worse than having no NOTA option at all. That is why we are campaigning for real NOTA ‘with teeth’, as outlined above. Giving the electorate the option to reject all that is on offer and trigger re-run / by-elections could have a profound knock on effect for the political system as a whole. Far from leading to endless re-runs, we believe an organic cleaning up of politics would occur as candidates and parties realise that they have to work harder for more people’s votes, including would be NOTA voters, and stay true to their word if they want to avoid blanket rejection at the ballot box in the future. The result would be more participation, not less, and less disillusionment all round.

“We would rather focus on practical solutions that would profoundly change politics for the better and tackle disillusionment rather than simply highlight it.”

As explained above, NOTA, if implemented properly ‘with teeth’, is just such a practical solution. If a reform such as NOTA, that has the potential to shake up politics and political parties for the better if properly implemented, is not directly tackling the problem of voter disillusionment, then I don’t know what is!

“Council recommends REJECT, but acknowledges the important concerns and ideas raised while noting that this motion is not in keeping with current Society strategy and campaigns.”

I’m afraid the Society’s current strategy and campaigning amounts to little more than pissing in the wind and lobbying turkeys to vote for Christmas. The current system works just fine for the establishment, they have no reason whatsoever to take any notice of the ERS calls for the reforms it seeks. By contrast, as explained above, NOTA is achievable as it is a democratic pre-requisite that, once properly understood, cannot be argued against without arguing against democracy itself. With enough vocal support from the general public, it could therefore become an inevitable government concession in the short to mid term. As such, it is the logical starting point from which all other reform could follow.

“We welcome the debate on this question at the AGM and recommend that Council further consider this issue following that debate.”

Good. Because this really is the elephant in the room. In our view, ERS acceptance of the need for NOTA and commitment to achieving it as the logical starting point for any and all further reform is long overdue. We look forward to seeing you all at the AGM.

Yours sincerely,
Jamie Stanley
NOTA UK
https://nota-uk.org/ “

Response to Government Position on NOTA

August 6, 2014 Leave a comment

Eileen Vagg at the Cabinet Office recently responded to our request for her to elaborate on the government’s position on NOTA. Here is my reply which contains all the points she raised in order, nothing omitted:

Dear Eileen,

Thank you for your correspondence. Allow me to go through it point by point.

1: “The Government considers that, when participating in a ballot, the position should be that the elector makes a positive choice of a representative rather than a negative one. It does not agree, therefore, that the introduction of a provision such as the one you suggest would be a positive step.”

This is not an argument, it is a logical fallacy. Specifically it is a ‘circular argument’. Essentially this: “The government believes electors should make a positive choice, therefore it doesn’t believe NOTA is a positive step.” Aside from containing a baseless, unspoken assumption that NOTA is negative, this offers zero reasoning for your repeated claim that engaging in the positive abstention of voting NOTA is a negative act. If you offer no logical reasoning to back up such a claim, it simply cannot ever stand up to scrutiny. The fact that you would attempt to dismiss such an important issue using such a clumsy logical fallacy suggests to me that perhaps you actually do realise that our assertions about NOTA representing the ability to withhold consent, which is itself central to the concept of democracy, are correct and that it therefore would be an inherently positive, democratising step to include it on the ballot paper – but that you would rather not have to deal with such a massive, game changing issue so close to an election.

2: “The Government believes it should be for candidates and the political parties to actively engage the electorate so they can make a positive choice of representation.”

So do we. Why do you think having NOTA would prevent this? On the contrary, if the electorate had the option to reject all candidates and parties on offer, then clearly there would be even more incentive for them to try to engage the electorate. One more positive reason why we should have NOTA.

3: “Neither the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) nor the United Nations’ ‘Universal Declaration on Human Rights’ (UDHR) requires states to adopt a particular electoral system.”

We never said it did. What we said is that these internationally recognised documents basically state that in a true democracy, elections must allow for the consent of the electorate to be sought and won before a government can be formed. As stated previously, consent is immaterial if it is not possible to withhold consent. Abstaining is not the same as formally withholding consent, it is simply not participating and can be dismissed as voter apathy with no further analysis. Spoiling the ballot is not the same either as all spoilt ballots are lumped in with those spoilt in error. Any spoilt vote count is therefore meaningless and does not provide an accurate measure of voter discontent. The only way to formally withhold consent at an election is by having an official NOTA option on the ballot paper with formalised consequences for the result if the majority choose it. In other words, without NOTA, the truly representative democracy that both the ICCPR and the UDHR call for is not possible. Ergo, these documents could be shown to indicate that NOTA is, arguably, a legal requirement in any truly representative democracy.

3: “The secrecy of the ballot allows the free expression of the elector.”

Indeed, but this is not irrelevant. The issue is not one of secrecy, it is one of consent and the ability to meaningfully withhold it, currently denied us.

4: “Your suggestion that an election is re-run where more than 50% of electors choose a NOTA option would lead to difficulties, not least of which is a lack of representation for constituents.”

What difficulties? The only difficulty it would lead to is that it would make it much harder for the current political elite to dominate the UK political system ad infinitum. For the already completely unrepresented majority in the UK, that is not a difficulty, it is progress. The one difficulty you have cited already exists, clearly. If anything, having NOTA would ultimately lead to better representation of constituents due to the knock on effect of having it (alluded to in point 2 above).

5: “The suggestion that there could be a temporary representation followed by a further election would not be straightforward and would raise a number of issues.”

But presumably issues not significant enough to actually warrant listing them. The only issue I see it raising is that it would level the playing field and cause the current political elite to have less dominance, a good thing for true democracy. Without a proposal to deal with the logistics, a NOTA win would indeed ‘not be straightforward’. That is precisely why we have put forward just such a proposal to make it as straight forward as possible. I note that you have not acknowledged this proposal at all in your response.

6: “The Government has no plans to bring forward legislation to introduce such an option on the ballot paper, but will keep under review the ways in which the democratic process may be enhanced.”

Well, we’ve just outlined a way in which the democratic process in the UK may be significantly enhanced and you have rejected it totally on entirely spurious grounds. So presumably, ‘reviewing’ is as far as the government is prepared to go on this issue. Also known as ‘paying lip service’.

Thank you anyway for your reply. We at least now know the extent of your commitment to improving our democracy. We will continue to make the solid, indisputable case for NOTA out in the real world with a view to eventually making it an election issue that can no longer be dismissed and swept under the carpet as you have tried to do with your response.

Yours sincerely,
Jamie Stanley
NOTA UK
http://www.nota-uk.org

Feel free to send further POLITE responses to Eileen Vagg at elections@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk

The ‘Judean People’s Front’ Myth

June 11, 2014 1 Comment

The People’s Front of Judea

I read an excellent article on Alternet the other day about one of the perils of getting involved with any kind of activism:

Should We Fight the System or Be the Change?
By Mark Engler and Paul Engler

It’s long, but if you have the time I highly recommend reading it in full. For me, it demystified one aspect of the well documented inability of social reformers throughout the ages to get their respective acts together, a problem so brilliantly lampooned in Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ all those years ago.

For brevity, in a nutshell, the Engler’s are saying that there are two vastly different approaches to activism:

1: ‘Fight the system’ – strategically attempting to reform and evolve existing structures for the benefit of all and the betterment of society in general through various means (this need not be done violently as the word ‘fight’ implies, it simply means engaging directly with the problem)

2: ‘Be the change’ – living differently, outside of the existing systems, in the hope that this will foster organic change on a larger scale over time.

The thrust of the article is that in order for real change to come about, both these approaches are useful and need therefore, ideally, to come together in some way – but that this is more often than not impossible due to the apparently conflicting nature of the two approaches and the people adopting them.

Although I’d never really thought about it that much until reading this article, I realise now that I instinctively try to ensure that my personal activism incorporates both these approaches to one degree or another, depending on the issue.

The latter approach is important because, as my friend, author and activist Cornelius Crowley recently commented elsewhere, by living a certain way we can “create social change underneath their feet, at the grass roots, in our schools, churches, synagogues, libraries, county halls and pubs, etc…” For this reason, I choose to live my life in a way that ensures I have as little as possible to do with systems and structures that I see as contributing to the continuation of the various endemic social problems that we as a species face.

The problem is, if that is all that we as activists are doing, it’s not enough. Because established power will still be able to use force to shut down and undermine these grass roots movements and it undoubtedly will whenever it can get away with it. Without actually addressing the structural and systemic problems that make that possible, at the same time as establishing grass roots changes by living our lives differently, tyranny remains the likely end result.

It follows then, that in order to be successful, activists and social reformers need to adopt both approaches in tandem. This is the reason why I devote so much time to making the case for NOTA, not to the converted, but strategically, to those who have the power to bring the issue to a head i.e. the mainstream media, the PR obsessed mainstream political parties, sympathetic members of the establishment and the like.

The Popular People’s Front (“Splitter!”)

An almost text book example of the extremely damaging gulf between the two approaches outlined above is the perceived split in the NOTA campaign between those campaigning for an actual ‘None of the Above’ option ‘with teeth’ on the UK ballot paper (NOTA UK, est. 2010) and those that believe mimicking it by playing the game of standing candidates on a supposedly NOTA platform is the same thing (Notavote / The NOTA party, est. 2012/3 – not 2007 as some of their members claim!).

For many in this latter group, NOTA appears to primarily represent a lifestyle choice, an opting out of society as a whole, a rejection of any and all governance. As such, they are ‘being the change’, to a degree, and are akin to the ‘prefigurative‘ groups referred to in the article – groups that were initially useful in terms of facilitating a shift in consciousness but, ultimately, an albatross around the neck of those strategically campaigning for the systemic and structural changes that all parties claimed to seek.

No doubt, many a potentially world changing movement has been scuppered by the short-sightedness and inability to see the bigger picture of the well meaning ‘prefigs’.

To confuse things further, in the case of NOTA, this perception of a divide is actually a false one, as the seemingly ‘prefig’ element doesn’t actually embody the changes us strategists seek at all. They are in fact conflating being able to withhold consent meaningfully in elections with some kind of uprising or revolution, rendering it an entirely separate enterprise in practice (which they then claim IS the real NOTA campaign – frustrating isn’t the word…). Although they would no doubt claim that what they are doing falls under the banner of strategically ‘fighting the system’, their misconstruing of what NOTA is and their promotion of it as a symbol of being ‘outside’, places them firmly under the ‘be the change’ banner, albeit in a somewhat ironic and inverted manner. Their election winning, establishment rocking fantasy appears to be merely an extension of that ethos.

Add to that the fact that some of their members routinely lie and use smear tactics against us in order to present themselves as the true face of NOTA (‘We were founded in 2007!’ / ‘We’ve already got NOTA on the ballot!’ / ‘NOTA UK? Talk about sour grapes!’), and the ‘prefig’ comparison starts to seem rather generous. These tactics hardly embody the principles that a campaign group seeking political reform ought to have, indeed they scream ‘more of the same’, I would suggest. A better definition for their approach to politics then, would perhaps be ‘non-figurative’. As in ‘abstract’.

Either way, these two groups are clearly not divided factions of the same movement, as they are often perceived to be. They are two totally separate crusades. One is campaigning for a structural, systemic change to the electoral system, the other is holding up that same concept as symbolic of its desire to live outside the constraints of established society. And there’d be absolutely nothing wrong with that – if it weren’t for the fact that the overlap caused by the latter is in danger of making it considerably harder for the former to do its job properly!

Tempting as it is, for the reasons outlined above, the all too easy ‘PFJ vs JPF vs PPF’ analogy in relation to those campaigning for NOTA at this time simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. So the next time you hear someone utter it, feel free to send them to this article.

Conclusion

Without a strategy that involves forming alliances with established power brokers to tackle and reform the systemic and structural reality of the injustice you are seeking to remedy (in this case NOTA UK’s approach to electoral reform), no amount of opting out of engaging with the injustice as it stands (Notavote’s ultimate destination, given how far removed their approach to NOTA is from the actual problem) is ever going to make a difference.

The injustice will trundle on regardless.

By Jamie Stanley
Founder, NOTA UK

UPDATE: On 28th October 2014, I became aware that Notavote, who were once infiltrated by known far right types Eva Silver and Junior Powell (see here: http://exeteredlnews.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/eva-silver-facebook-spam-lawful-rebellion-and-the-english-volunteer-force/), are now employing Britain First style tactics to promote themselves. Memes detailing Iain Duncan Smiths’s treachery and the like, things that people instantly want to share. Except that the text reveals that these are in fact adverts for a political party claiming to represent a bonafide None of the Above option simply by registering themselves as another one of the above. If you support our campaign for real NOTA, please spread the word about this, I cannot emphasise enough how potentially damaging to our prospects of achieving our goal this misguided group could be if they are allowed to hijack our campaign and undo all the good work we have done.

Commons Select Committee Evidence Submission

April 17, 2014 1 Comment

NOTA UK recently submitted written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee as part of their inquiries into voter engagement. It has been accepted into the public record and published on their website. You can view it here:

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/7985

GUEST BLOG: The Legality of NOTA / Right to Reject

March 23, 2014 Comments: 3

Submitted by Rohin Vadera on 21/03/14

The Legality of NOTA / Right to Reject

Based on the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India (SC) in September 2013 that electronic voting machines (EVMs) must include a ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option to retain the right of voters to continue to voice their will through a ‘negative vote’ (a term I dislike, by the way), I did further research based on the United Nations’ ‘Universal Declaration on Human Rights’ (UDHR) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that was used in part by the SC to come to its judgement.

The full judgement is available here: http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2013/vote_none.pdf

Below I paste a section from its judgement that quotes sections from the UDHR and ICCPR:

49) However correspondingly, we should also appreciate that the election is a mechanism, which ultimately represents the will of the people. The essence of the electoral system should be to ensure freedom of voters to exercise their free choice. Article 19 guarantees all individuals the right to speak, criticize, and disagree on a particular issue. It stands on the spirit of tolerance and allows people to have diverse views, ideas and ideologies. Not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the very freedom of expression and the right ensured in Article 21 i.e., the right to liberty.

(Text highlighted by myself)

The UDHR is here: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng

The ICCPR is here: http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

Further the SC noted the usefulness of ‘negative voting’ in its promotion of a healthy democracy.

However the NOTA option on the EVM is only the ability of a voter to abstain from voting, this abstention though noted will not affect the final result of the election. In my view this will mean that the NOTA option cannot achieve the potential described in the Supreme Court ruling below:

55) Giving right to a voter not to vote for any candidate while protecting his right of secrecy is extremely important in a democracy. Such an option gives the voter the right to express his disapproval with the kind of candidates that are being put up by the political parties. When the political parties will realise that a large number of people are expressing their disapproval with the candidates being put up by them, gradually there will be a systematic change and the political parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity.

For NOTA to have a substantive impact as described above it must be able to affect the results of an election. Politicians are used to wide spread approbation, so a symbolic NOTA will be shrugged off or used in some type of political game resulting in no substantive positive changes.

Further to that, a symbolic NOTA provides little incentive for disillusioned voters to express their voice as there is no clear and unambiguous consequence to that choice, other than insecurity and uncertainty if used widely. Insecurity and uncertainty is the worst type of result in an election and so this outcome undermines the use of NOTA, as it could encourage disillusioned voters to steer clear of the voting process altogether instead of choosing NOTA.

Below I argue how the UDHR and the ICCPR have wordings that strongly imply that having a NOTA option with the power to affect an election result is a legal and logical pre-requisite in any functioning democracy. By NOTA affecting an election result I specifically mean that if NOTA achieves a majority of the valid votes cast the election should be run again.

There are some practical and logistical issues to address in having such a system, some possible solutions to which are outlined in this blog on the NOTA UK website: https://nota-uk.org/2013/11/16/nota-for-real-logistics-ramifications/

First a quick introduction to the 2 documents I have cited.

The first is UDHR – ‘While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words “fundamental freedoms” and “human rights” appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states’……many international lawyers,[22] believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law’

(Text highlighted by myself)

The second is: ICCPR – the UK has signed and ratified this covenant (and so has most of the world)

From the UDHR Article 21 is relevant to NOTA, in my opinion:

  • 1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  • 2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
  • 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

From ICCPR Article 25 is relevant:

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

Taking each section I have highlighted in turn:

  •  ‘freely chosen representatives’ – Can representatives be said to be freely chosen if they cannot all be rejected? To me, it very much sounds like ‘real NOTA’ is required to fulfill this provision.
  • ‘the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government’ – the will of the people can only be expressed through their consent, if people cannot withhold their consent, then they cannot give their consent, therefore the will of the people has not been expressed and so the government has no basis for its authority.
  •  ‘guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors’ – We are guaranteed ‘real NOTA’ as a valid option on the ballot.

To me the interpretation of ‘the will of the people/electors’ is the most critical element. What does ‘will’ mean?

From the Oxford dictionary the meaning of will relevant to us is: expressing desire, consent, or willingness.

It’s clear that consent is a vital component of will. How can any government that is based on the will of the electorate not have their consent? Once we can establish that consent cannot be given without ‘real NOTA’ the UK government is bound by the UDHR and ICCPR to provide it.

Let me clarify how consent is linked with ‘real NOTA’ i.e. if NOTA achieved a majority of valid votes the election must be held again.

In a democracy, regardless of who we vote for, we consent that the winner of that election will represent the whole of that electorate. However if we do not have the means to withhold consent, it is impossible to give consent.

How can consent be given if it cannot be withheld?

The only fair and practical way consent can be withheld is by having a NOTA option on the ballot that ensures the election is held again if it receives a majority of the valid votes cast. To ensure fairness, if consent can be established by ticking a box on a ballot, then withholding consent must also be established by a method equivalent to giving consent.

For example, if I look at the list of candidates on the ballot and I find that none of them are worthy of my vote, I currently have no fair means of expressing that opinion and having it count – so the winner of the election is representing me without my consent. In a democracy, this is a clear violation of my rights and of everyone who feels as I do. The only way the free expression of my will can be expressed is through the ‘real NOTA’ option.

In my view NOTA is not a refinement of the voting system, it is a pre-requisite to any fair and equitable voting system that allows the free expression of the will of the electorate.

More importantly its presence has the potential to improve the quality of our political representatives in UK politics, as its presence will have to be accounted for in all calculations by political parties and their candidates. Currently, politicians only have an incentive to be the least worst in an election – with a ‘real NOTA’ option present they must strive to be the best.

Is this not a critical objective if we are to progress?

Even worse, the lack of ‘real NOTA’ means that poor candidates can make the entry of good candidates difficult by turning politics into a cesspool within which mainly only the unscrupulous can survive.

If voters are given real power in the political process it encourages their engagement, not just in the voting process, but in all aspects of the political process. They have now become active participants in their governance rather than passive recipients of governance that is on offer to them on a particular day.

Rohin Vadera

NOTA campaign officially arrives!

March 21, 2014 Leave a comment

On 20th March 2014, our NOTA campaign went into overdrive and found itself very much at home in the corridors of power…

David Babbs from 38 Degrees appeared before the Parliamentary Committee on Voter Engagement to give evidence from a recent survey of their members. NOTA featured heavily in the responses and so naturally featured heavily in his presentation also. Watch the video here, NOTA comes into its own around 20 mins in.

NOTA Straw Poll

February 25, 2014 Comments: 7

NB: This poll is purposely minimal. If you have selected ‘No’ or ‘Possibly’, feel free to tell us why in the comment thread so that we can analyse and discuss reasoning.

Russia to introduce NOTA?

February 11, 2014 Leave a comment

According to RT, The Committee for Constitutional Legislation of the Russian lower house has recommended MP’s support a bill calling for the reinstating of an official ‘none of the above option’ on ballots for municipal and regional elections.

This NOTA option was first introduced at elections in Russia in 1991. It was then scrapped in 2006 for ‘financial reasons’. Now, they are considering re-instating it.

This is a very interesting development. Clearly, Russia under Vladimir Putin is not known for its championing of human rights and democracy. And it could of course be argued that, in what is essentially a dictatorship, allowing such a pro-democracy option to exist amounts to nothing more than a PR gesture, as there are certainly more ways than one to discourage dissent and influence voters at election time in such a country.

That said, what is striking about this move is that the form of NOTA in question, whilst falling short of applying across the board nationally as we are campaigning for in the UK, is very much closer to the kind of NOTA with teeth that we are calling for than the faux-NOTA that exists elsewhere (more on the difference here).

This is, to our knowledge, the first and only time that a country has implemented, ditched and then proposed to reinstate an official NOTA option with real ramifications for the election result if it gets the most votes. A step in the right direction and definitely one to watch in our view!

More info on the NOTA with teeth that we are calling for in the UK can be found here.

NOTA with teeth vs. faux NOTA

January 30, 2014 Comments: 2

A common argument made against having a NOTA option on the ballot paper is the ‘but NOTA doesn’t achieve anything’ argument.

I never understood the logic of that, so tended to dismiss such criticisms as baseless, founded on unexamined assumptions and therefore not worthy of comment.

Upon investigation, however, I discovered that there is a perfectly logical and valid reason why people believe this: their perception of NOTA is based on how they believe it has been implemented elsewhere and the impact it has had.

A perfectly rational way to assess an electoral reform’s effectiveness, you might think – until you realise that, in all cases, the form of NOTA in question bares no resemblance to the bonafide NOTA option with teeth that we are campaigning for.

This excellent article lists 12 countries where a form of NOTA exists, the most recent addition being India:

http://www.care2.com/causes/12-countries-where-citizens-can-vote-none-of-the-above.html

In all cases, NOTA is a token gesture with no ramifications whatsoever. If NOTA wins in any of these countries, literally nothing happens. The second placed live candidate takes office anyway.

What use is that? If there are no consequences when the majority reject all that is on offer, why bother making use of the option in the first place? Having such a token NOTA option does nothing for voter turnout as it offers no more incentive to the disenfranchised to vote than if it were not there at all. It therefore doesn’t even offer an effective way of measuring voter discontent – the bare minimum!

True NOTA, clearly, must have ramifications for the election result if it wins, otherwise it is meaningless. Our proposal is for just such a thing and is covered in detail here: https://nota-uk.org/2013/11/16/nota-for-real-logistics-ramifications/

So – the next time someone trots out the ‘NOTA won’t achieve anything argument’, politely remind them that true NOTA has never been tried anywhere and point them our way.