None of the Above UK

Great social leaps forward generally occur in spite of government – not because of it.

Progressive social changes like votes for women and the birth of the NHS were borne of people coming together and fighting for a cause. Much as political parties of all stripes love to take credit for such things, the truth is that such leaps forward invariably occur in the form of inevitable government concessions that become necessary in order to keep the peace. So could it be with NOTA.

NOTA is a democratic pre-requisite. When you vote in an election, you effectively give consent to being represented by whoever wins. But  consent is immaterial if it is not possible to withhold consent.  NOTA represents the democratic right to withhold consent and exercise ones right to vote simultaneously.

When understood this way, as a democratic necessity, it is impossible to argue against NOTA without appearing anti-democratic. Even if they are, the political class can never be seen to be that. Ergo, with enough vocal support behind it, NOTA ought to one day be achievable as an inevitable government concession.

Getting the necessary level of public support is also possible, in our view, because NOTA is straightforward, self-explanatory and in tune with the public mood. By contrast, debates about the merits and pitfalls of various voting systems and more complex reforms like RON (re-open nominations), for example, are not. They appear exclusive, dull, and inaccessible to many.

NOTA remains the achievable and potentially unifying electoral reform from which all other reform could flow.

It is a common misconception that it is already possible to cast a vote for None of the Above in the UK by either not voting or spoiling the ballot paper.

Abstaining 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 a measure of voter discontent.

An official NOTA option, by contrast, would.

Voting NOTA, if we could, would be a way of not just officially registering a vote of no confidence in all candidates, parties and policies put forward but also a way of demanding better choices.

Another common misconception is that if only more people would bother to vote, we’d get better parties, candidates and policies in government.

Unfortunately, when you really understand how our voting system works, it becomes clear that this is not the case.

The ‘First Past The Post’ voting system, combined with deeply entrenched voting habits in hundreds of traditionally safe Labour and Conservative seats, ensures that our electoral system is effectively a two horse race with only one or other of the big two able to form a government, either with an outright majority or in coalition with smaller parties who then have little or no influence over policy in practice.

In such a system, the third biggest party – currently the Liberal Democrats – exist solely to shoehorn one of the big two into power. For this reason, new parties and independents stand no chance of forming a government and very little chance of having any real influence over policy in our current system. Even with the best of intentions, they essentially just split the vote and facilitate the continuation of a two party system. This would be undemocratic even if those two parties were diametrically opposed – but they aren’t. Beyond the electioneering and hype, they are both parties of big business and little else, answerable to the same corporate and financial elites.

An official NOTA option would, by its very existence, level this playing field considerably. More discussion of the how and why can be found here:
https://nota-uk.org/2013/11/16/nota-for-real-logistics-ramifications/

In order for an official NOTA option on the ballot paper to be effective, in the event of it “winning”, a remedial process must be triggered and the election rebooted/rerun with new candidates and/or policies in place.

Logistics: If we had NOTA and it received a majority share of the vote — either nationally at a general election or in specific constituencies at either local or general elections — this should render the corresponding vote count null and void. In the case of specific constituencies choosing NOTA, this should trigger a by-election with new candidates and/or policies. By extension, at a national level, a win for NOTA should trigger a re-run of the whole election with new candidates and/or policies in place.

Clearly, the logistics of having a re-run election and/or by-elections straight after a general election are problematic. For this reason, it is our proposal that to make this process run smoothly with the least disruption, rather than have the by-elections / re-run election happen straight away, the next placed live candidate or party, although beaten by NOTA, should be allowed to take office temporarily while the logistics of the re-run/by-election are put in place, on the understanding that they will occur no less than 6 months and no more than 12 months after the initial election. Without this there would be instant re-runs/by-elections and political instability. This solves that problem.

This proposal could even be modified to take into account the vote share for NOTA and the runners up in different constituencies with a view to staggering by-elections across the year to avoid political instability. For example, a NOTA win by 100% or more of the next placed live candidate or party’s votes could trigger a 6 month delay before the by-election, a NOTA win by up to 100% could trigger a 12 month delay, and so on. In practice, this needn’t be any more or less  problematic than the hung parliament scenario of last time round. It would, however, be infinitely more democratic and representative of the will of the electorate.

Ramifications: This system is workable and could deliver real change to UK politics. In the event of a NOTA win, the six month to one year delay before the by-elections / re-run election would give the electorate, parties and election organisers time to prepare for the new election/s. It would also give the next placed live candidate or party (who, although not victorious, will still have pulled a significant share of the vote) an opportunity to prove themselves worthy of being in office ahead of the new election/s, at which they would be free to stand again.

Whether or not the other previously rejected candidates would be allowed to stand again would be an issue for the parties and Electoral Commission to decide. Either way, it would hardly be in the interests of the parties to put forward an unpopular rejected candidate twice.

The upshot would be that all political parties would be forced to have a contingency plan in place if their candidates were roundly rejected the first time round, a plan that would have to involve having more progressive candidates and policies to put forward if need be. Of course, they may well approach this in a public relations, style-over-content manner to begin with — in which case people would be free to reject them via NOTA again if not convinced.

It may take a while, but eventually the parties would learn that they have to start actually representing the electorate in order to be elected. The logical progression from that is that self-serving career politicians would be discouraged from standing in the first place and those of integrity and a genuine will to represent their community would be encouraged.

This is democracy in action — impossible without NOTA, in our view. When seen this way, it becomes clear that voting NOTA, if we could, would not just be a vote against the current system but a vote FOR a better one.