[EM] "None of the Rest"

Donald E Davison donald at mich.com
Wed Feb 23 02:05:15 PST 2000


Monday 2/21/00, Stephen Todd wrote:
     If a voter gives his first preference to an actual candidate, he can
then go on and give a second or subsequent preference to the [None of the
Above]NA option, but cannot then indicate further preferences beyond NA.
In this latter case, the voter is saying, in effect, 'None of the Rest'.

Tuesday 2/22/00, Stephen writes:
     We have never had a NOTA option for any public election in NZ, so I
was not exactly sure of my ground when I suggested a 'None of the Rest'
(NOTR) option for STV elections yesterday.  Do you think it is consistent
with the rationale behind the NOTA option (as it is understood in the US)
to also allow voters to indicate a lower preference for that option (in
effect, saying None of the Rest)?

Dear Steve, I like the term `None of the Rest' better than None of the
Above. None of the Rest gives the voter some degree in selecting some
candidates, while None of the Above indicates that the voter is rejecting
all candidates. It is too much like `All or Nothing'.

Steve: If [the] 5th preference were given for the NOTA option (and that
preference was eventually activated), it would allow that part of the vote
to remain in the election (to help the NOTA option attain the quota),
rather than go straight to Non-transferable as it would if the voter were
to stop numbering the candidates at his 4th preference.
    It seems to me that voters would want to have more options available to
them than either rejecting all the candidates (by giving their first (and
only) preference to the NOTA option), or voting normally by giving a
preference ranking to one, some, or all the candidates.  Some voters would
be quite happy to see some candidates elected, but not others, and would
want to have the means to register their opposition to those other
candidates by being able to indicate a later preference for the NOTA

Donald: Yes, I agree.

Steve: Do you think the NOTR option (later preferences) is a valid
extension of the NOTA option (unique first preference), having regard for
the US understanding of the rationale for the NOTA option?

Best regards

Donald: I think the concept of the term NOTR would fly much better than
NOTA. Most voters do not like the idea of giving up their vote for one
candidate just so they can reject other candidates.
    My current position is to use the term None of the Rest in place of
NOTA. Most voters are not using NOTA at the present time so it should be
possible to introduce NOTR.

    I am supporting this None concept for the purpose of allowing the
voters to reduce the number of seats when there is a shortage of candidates
for any one election. I am not trying to reject any certain candidates. I
want the voter to be able to vote for his most preferred preference and
also vote to reduce the number of seats. For example, in Plurality-at-Large
the voter can select candidates with most of his votes, but he can also
indicate with some votes that he feels the number of seats should be less
for this election.
    This cannot be done in the methods of SNTV, Bottoms Up, nor Choice
Voting. That is why I inserted the vote on reducing the seats to one half
of available candidates for those three methods. Of course, another
percentage could be used, like say, sixty percent of available candidates.

Regards, Donald Davison

   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |

      A   M O R E   D I R E C T   D E M O C R A C Y   W E B   S I T E
              A Source of Study Material for Political Change
                A More Direct Democracy is a New Democracy
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list