When it comes to election time my general approach is "Don't encourage them, don't vote." I've never been disappointed with that considered choice.
But Henry Olsen has an idea that might get me into a booth: a negative vote.
We know exactly who we cannot stand and why the other lot would be a disaster. But our positive support for any party is probably lukewarm at best. ...
Perhaps the voting system should reflect that.
Imagine this: ... You head to the polls and discover that, not only can you vote for a party, but you can also vote against one.
Instead of adding to your preferred party’s vote count, you could bring down the count of one you hate. Now that voters have finally mastered MMP, this would take democracy to a whole new level.
Are you a middle-aged farmer worried about the Greens’ alternative Budget, or a young college graduate mad at the Coalition for reducing Auckland’s housing construction allowance? Use the negative vote to express your anger!
No one would be obliged to use their positive vote, so all votes could be negative. The party with the fewest negative votes would then win the election.
I like it. It could be that all parties are so hated, we could have a Prime Minister leading a party with more negative votes than positive. Just fewer negative votes than all those other bastards.
Then let's see them talk about their bloody "mandate."
PS: Which of the bastards would you be voting against?
4 comments:
I'm not so sure about that. With the media whipping people into a frenzy seemingly every day, and the spittle-flying invective for "the right" (Luxon is a thumb, Seymour is a racist etc. etc. ad nauseum), it feels like a constant three-minutes-hate out there. I know who would "lose" the negative voting, and while I'm no fan of National or NZ First, I do believe them to be much less destructive than the alternative. I believe this would walk that alternative right in the gates of power, and keep them there.
As always, it'd be nice to be wrong.
90 million folk didn’t vote in the 2024 US election. More than voted for Trump or Harris. So non voters won the election! Maybe they just couldn’t be bothered or maybe they thought neither party spoke for them. Interesting topic.
What happens if all of the candidates end up with negative vote totals?
@SteveD: "No one would be obliged to use their positive vote, so all votes could be negative. The party with the fewest negative votes would then win the election." So much for the idea of a "mandate."
Post a Comment