Blank votes

I have been doing some thinking about the white votes (not choosing any of the candidates rather than voting for one), and how they are something fundamentally important in a democracy. Voting no one in an election sends a message "we don't like the choices we are given" and sometimes such message is need to be sent.

The main problem about this blank votes is that they are counter culture, people who vote like that are usually regarded as radicals, and others simply believe that voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a better thing to do. I figured that this is because the current society consider this votes as "useless".

But why is there no effort to educate people and to explain them how a blank vote is a rightful expression of democracy? There should be campaigns to raise the importance of this practice so democracy is at their fullest, TV adds should stress that voting blank is better than "the lesser of two evils".

Note that this message is not linked to any political following and is put here to let ideas flow and ideologies meet, nothing more.

Originally posted by Bentley

But why is there no effort to educate people and to explain them how a blank vote is a rightful expression of democracy? There should be campaigns to raise the importance of this practice so democracy is at their fullest, TV adds should stress that voting blank is better than "the lesser of two evils".

Note that this message is not linked to any political following and is put here to let ideas flow and ideologies meet, nothing more.

Because this psuedo-ideology can also be closely correlated to complete apathy or simple laziness.

Not voting at all is laziness, voting blank is voting blank. Stressing the importance and place of a blank vote is fundamental for people to actually use it with in the right matter.

I don't see how this is more or less lazy or shows more apathy that other practices that are done nowadays.

Voting Blank doesn't really show in any statistics or anything, does it?

Maybe not in the United States, obviously my thread supposes that blanks get counted.

😆

Originally posted by Bardock42
Voting Blank doesn't really show in any statistics or anything, does it?

It should.

I think that if a majority of votes go to "none of the above", non of the candidates should get the job.

Who steps in their place, though? hmm

Never mind, that idea fails horribly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It should.

I think that if a majority of votes go to "none of the above", non of the candidates should get the job.

Who steps in their place, though? hmm

Never mind, that idea fails horribly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, it's a good idea. No one steps into their place. We get an anarchist utopia. And everything is fine without any leaders.

But our system of checks and balances falls apart if that happens. Our country would probably go into chaos. IMO, humans are too stupid and selfish for a Utopian anarchy, pure communism, or law of consecration to work.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But our system of checks and balances falls apart if that happens. Our country would probably go into chaos. IMO, humans are too stupid and selfish for a Utopian anarchy, pure communism, or law of consecration to work.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree. Though I can understand why our rulers would like us to believe that. I mean the whole ****ing Democracy thing is bullshit anyways, it's just a tool they use to pretend they have that right, similar through rule by blood or through God's choice in earlier times.

Maybe you should test your idea on a much smaller and insignificant country that is similar to our own. The Philippines works on a bicameral legislature and I believe they have a judicial and executive "branch". They are very Christian over there too. As the Aussies say, give it a burl. Though that is not to be taken seriously, I would be interested in the results.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe you should test your idea on a much smaller and insignificant country that is similar to our own. The Philippines works on a bicameral legislature and I believe they have a judicial and executive "branch". They are very Christian over there too. As the Aussies say, give it a burl. Thought that is not to be taken seriously, I would be interested in the results.

Ha, right. Well, obviously that's not a viable way into an anarchist society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ha, right. Well, obviously that's not a viable way into an anarchist society.

I'm not sure what you mean? I hate to make you type up two or three paragraphs to explain...but I honestly don't understand what you meant by that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not sure what you mean? I hate to make you type up two or three paragraphs to explain...but I honestly don't understand what you meant by that.

I meant that to create an anarchist society that might actually work you can't just make the country disappear. I thought that was half-jokingly what we were talking about?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I meant that to create an anarchist society that might actually work you can't just make the country disappear. I thought that was half-jokingly what we were talking about?

I thought you meant that you wouldn't be able to convert the Philippines into an anarchy (the good kind....not the chaotic-where everyone is flipped out and killing and robing-kind).

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought you meant that you wouldn't be able to convert the Philippines into an anarchy (the good kind....not the chaotic-where everyone is flipped out and killing and robing-kind).

Which is probably true also. Contrary to popular belief, I do not hold any kind of power over the Phillippines and most governments don't like if you preach about their abolishment.

There are several ways to solve the "nobody wins" situation, in your average republic, there are several powers that represent society already, and some are taken by elections. If people who vote blank win the election it means that the system fails, and thus new parties or ideologies should step in. In a decent system this should arrive only in times of crisis, it would not be a frequent ocurrence unless the mayority of the population is actually anarchist by nature, or the government plain sucks or its too unpopular.

My main point in throwing this argument to the table is that it falls into the needs of democracy, you see, if in a vote 20% of the people vote blank, but someone is elected with 30% -thus winning the election-, this sends a message of warning that the current system is at crisis and that parties and ideologies should be revisited.

Even for the reasons i stated first, this is a flawed idea.

Someone in the limelight would also lobby hard for more blank votes. The newly appointed thinkers/parties would seem all "new-age" but do the same thing as the old Whigs (not literally the Whigs, but it just seemed funny to reference them since they no longer exist) and so on.

Just have a dictatorship and have it done with.

Many of us are used to living in a 'nanny state' already, where every other thing is forbidden or in process of being forbidden or is being talked about being forbidden.
You have a lot of CCTVs watching everything you do, and there are a lot of gutter press going around which simplifies every single thing to the most basic terms, which allows our politicians to be as incompetent as they like.

Grrr arrrg @ demawcracee!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Just have a dictatorship and have it done with.

Many of us are used to living in a 'nanny state' already, where every other thing is forbidden or in process of being forbidden or is being talked about being forbidden.
You have a lot of CCTVs watching everything you do, and there are a lot of gutter press going around which simplifies every single thing to the most basic terms, which allows our politicians to be as incompetent as they like.

Grrr arrrg @ demawcracee!