Giving an empty ballot still legitimizes the system, and when you see the system as being the real problem, you would violate your own logic if going to vote and give an empty vote. The strong message to parties? They take the empty ballots, make them count for the total turnout quota, and then sell it as a huge participation in election that expresses how satisfied people are with the political status. Nobody reads the smallprint.

When you meet the devil and he offers you to play a game, there is only one way to save your soul: do not play at all.

Obligation to vote? No go, you cannot intimidate people to go voting if they do not want to vote - and still call that "freedom". It's tyranny that blackmails people to give it moral legitimation and forgiving of all sins.

Thats a good notion.
However in practical terms you are already stuck in the game with no real sensible way out, so pretending that you are not playing is just bending over and asking the system to bugger you roughly.
Now there is the real unsensible way out. You can Hop into the fanciful world of tyranny that the rather vile 20th century dictatorships could only dream of achieving.

So many dilemmas for those of us with the right to vote, and how we use our freedom:
Be apathetic and do not bother going to vote.
Be apolitical, go and vote but not care who you choose.
Vote but spoil your ballot paper.
Vote by posting blank ballot paper (not really certain whether this is any different from spoiling the paper).
Vote and chose a candidate/party closest to your viewpoint, or most important issue(s).
Tactical vote and choose a candidate/party to block the candidate/party you really would not want to win.
#
IMO freedom gives me the right to vote if I want to and allows a choice of several different parties. I may complain about who is in post/power but at least I made an effort to vote.

We really do need a None of the Above choice, even if it is just advisory.

It needs an empty seat then. No vote is no politician. Now (at least here) it's the percentage of votes that count. 10% for the right, 10% for the left and 80% for noone still means that 45 left and 45 right seats will be taken.

They want null ballots, it leaves the party sheeple to decide :nope:

I agree but I think it'd be a lot easier to get it going by making it an advisory. Election do-overs can come later.

My thinking is that a "none of the above" choice would serve to consolidate the politically disaffected into a statistically significant group that cannot be ignored by the pols or the media. Right now it's too easy to dismiss large percentages of the electorate as just the supporters of fringe groups when the overwhelming majority of them are really just expressing dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties.

Give the people a recognized way to protest the current slate of candidates and it won't be so easy to ignore them.

There is another way...

Go in the voting booth to relieve yourself of yesterdays meals and then mark your ballot.

Yeah because forcing poll workers, mostly little old ladies to clean up human feces is a great way to win support for your position. :roll:

Suburban. just under 3,000 registered voters in a precinct about 3 miles in diameter, if that.

I wonder what would happen if our elections were moved from a plurality to a majority form?

Run-offs and they can be expensive. :yep:

Very true.

How about a run off only if None of the Above gets more votes than any other candidate?

How about if "none of the above" gets more votes, the government considers doing away with that position. :D:yeah:

What about allocating the total number of seats based purely on percentage of ballots cast.
For example, there are only 100 seats in government (as if that is likely); Party A get 35% of the national vote and so they have 35 seats allocated to them, Party B get 30% so they gain 30 seats, Party C 12%, etc, and None-of-the-Above have 20% of votes so 20 seats are unavailable to anyone.
This way it is real proportional representation and voting for None-of-the above does have an impact. Too simplistic a concept but it lays out a framework idea to start developing a working system.

That reminds me of an Alexei Sayle skit where to vote, you dunked your head into some disgusting substance. I guess that's what it feels like after the election :haha:

That might work in a Parliamentary style system but when I vote it's for a candidate, not a party.