# Should “not voting” count towards something? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489 "2004-04-28T15:20:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/1 "2004-04-28T15:20:58Z")
I was inspired by a politician this morning that said, “More people didn’t vote in the last election, than people that voted for the current party.” (Green Party President, CBC Newsworld) So my question for debate is, “Should not-voting count?” As I type this I realize that I still haven’t figured out exactly _how_ it would count. One scenario would be that non-voting is a sign of general apathy, and reflects contentment. The people are complacent, things are good enough, so the incumbent should get the vote. The other scenario would be that the vote should count against the incumbent. People should be encouraged to get out and say they still want their leader, failure to do so means their leader has failed to inspire them. The obvious problem with counting not-votes is that people might be prevented from voting against their will (what you see in many African democracies as the leader tries to prevent votes against him). This would be all too common in many new democracies around the world, but I’m not sure this would work in more developed countries. As voter apathy continues to grow, should we instead raise the required participation for a vote to count? Would that do anything? ---
**Author:** ![grimpixie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@grimpixie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grimpixie)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/2 "2004-04-28T15:25:57Z")
IIRC, voting in Australia is compulsory, but a “None of the above” option is always included on the voting sheet. This is a system that has always apealed to me, although I think it would create as many problems as it solves. I come from a land where the right to vote is still appreciated by larger chuncks of the population than elsewhere in the world, and I see it as a civic duty, but being able to actively “not vote” sounds like a good thing to me… Grim ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/3 "2004-04-28T15:28:55Z")
A non-vote can mean either “none of the above” or “I don’t care”. You need to differentiate between the two. ---
**Author:** ![RandomLetters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8edcca/32.png) [@RandomLetters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandomLetters)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/4 "2004-04-28T15:41:26Z")
This is a pretty simple question to answer - half the “not-votes” should go to the incumbent, while the other half should go to the leading challenger. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/5 "2004-04-28T15:45:47Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So my question for debate is, “Should not-voting count?” Absolutely not. Not in the US. It’s so damn EASY to vote that if you can’t get your lazy-ass to do it, then you get no say. None, zip, zilch, _nada_. > [@](#): > > The other scenario would be that the vote should count against the incumbent. People should be encouraged to get out and say they still want their leader, failure to do so means their leader has failed to inspire them. That makes no sense. Does the constitution require that leaders “inspire” their constituents? No it doesn’t. If you want to change the constitution, then go ahead and try to do so. Until then, don’t read stuff into it that isn’t there. **There is ABSOLUTELY no way to determine why a given person doesn’t vote** , so I see no reason to try to assume it is one reason vs another. As far as “none of the above” goes, that’s sounds nice, but we (in the US) actually do have that option-- it’s a write-in vote. If you can’t think of anyone, write your own name down. ---
**Author:** ![Ace309](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ace309/32/1050_2.png) [@Ace309](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace309)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/6 "2004-04-28T16:00:31Z")
This question is dealt with briefly in Doppelt & Shearer’s Nonvoters. In it, they separate a group of confirmed nonvoters into different ‘types’ of nonvoters. Some people don’t vote because they don’t care. Some people don’t vote because they don’t see a difference between the two main parties. Some people don’t vote because they want to reject all the current candidates. Some people don’t vote because they’re just satisfied with the system without participating. The only way to codify the none of the above vote would be to put the option on the ballot, but really, you’re probably not going to get people who would serially vote NOTA to come out. You’d get regular voters to come out and occasionally check NOTA in a race between candidates they disliked. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/7 "2004-04-28T17:16:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Absolutely not. Not in the US. It’s so damn EASY to vote that if you can’t get your lazy-ass to do it, then you get no say. None, zip, zilch, _nada_. That said, John, we _could_ make it more convenient to vote by moving election day off Tuesday to Saturday or somesuch. I’d actually very much like to see that happen and see if we get an extra 5% or so participation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/8 "2004-04-28T17:34:25Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > That said, John, we _could_ make it more convenient to vote by moving election day off Tuesday to Saturday or somesuch. > > I’d actually very much like to see that happen and see if we get an extra 5% or so participation. But anyone can sign up for an absentee ballot and vote whenever he or she chooses. That’s the way I always do it. Do people drive over to the bank to pay their credit card bills in person? No, they send in their bill by mail. Yeah, we could move it to Saturday, but then all the Orthodox Jews would claim discrimination. Tuesday was chosen for a reason. No one has a claim on that day. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/9 "2004-04-29T04:25:18Z")
Voting is compulsory in Australia at all levels of government (federal, state and local). But there is no option given for a vote for “None of the above”. In fact, since voting is done in secret, there is no way to compel anyone to vote. The compulsion relates merely to turning up at the polling booth, getting one’s name crossed off the electoral roll and putting a ballot paper (whether completed or not) in to the ballot box. If you wish to cast a protest vote, scribble all over the ballot paper or simply write nothing at all then you are free to do so. But your vote will be invlaid and won’t be counted. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/10 "2004-04-29T18:06:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **There is ABSOLUTELY no way to determine why a given person doesn’t vote** , so I see no reason to try to assume it is one reason vs another. But part of the problem there is that it is not defined. You are basing your evaluation on the status quo: that people don’t vote for a variety of reasons. In my situation, a non-vote would have a meaning, people would be informed of that meaning, and then be required to deal with it. At the very least I think non-voting should count against both parties, not voting should be a sign that you are unhappy with the options presented. As you pointed out, voting is easy, but when citizens choose not to vote there should be a concequence. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/11 "2004-04-29T19:05:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > As far as “none of the above” goes, that’s sounds nice, but we (in the US) actually do have that option-- it’s a write-in vote. If you can’t think of anyone, write your own name down. I used to think this too, because my sister and her friends once cast votes for my mother (she wasn’t running) for a local office in our Boston suburb whose established candidates both sucked, and the results were reported in the paper. However, here in California in 2004, it’s an entirely different matter, according to [the Secretary of State (PDF file)](http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/cand_qual_wi.pdf): (Section III. A) > [@](#): > > No name written upon a ballot in any election shall be counted for an office or nomination unless the candidate whose name has been written on the ballot has been certified as a write-in candidate. In other words, unless you’ve notified the state of your intentions and disclosed your funding, they won’t count votes for you. And for president, it’s even worse. Each of the 54 people who you plan on having act as your Electors has to get themselves certified. It’s necessity really. You can’t have the electoral process being treated as some circus where everyone can do pretty much whatever they want to. Otherwise, our state could end up with a kind of freak show like last year’s California Gubernatorial Recall Election… Oh, wait. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/12 "2004-04-29T19:09:56Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > As you pointed out, voting is easy, but when citizens choose not to vote there should be a concequence. There is already a consequence. A person who chooses not to vote does not get to participate in selecting our leaders. Marc ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/13 "2004-04-29T19:17:36Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > But part of the problem there is that it is not defined. You are basing your evaluation on the status quo: that people don’t vote for a variety of reasons. In my situation, a non-vote would have a meaning, people would be informed of that meaning, and then be required to deal with it. That’s all fine and good, but how are we supposed to divine why the other 40 million odd non-voters didn’t vote? > [@](#): > > At the very least I think non-voting should count against both parties, not voting should be a sign that you are unhappy with the options presented. Should be? In what way? What if it **isn’t**? What if someone is happy enough with all the possibilities to simply not bother? > [@](#): > > As you pointed out, voting is easy, but when citizens choose not to vote there should be a concequence. Well, there are consequences. They don’t ge a say in the political process. Why \*\*SHOULD \*\* there be other consequences? **SA** : Thanks for the correction. But one is still able to write in any name, even if it isn’t counted. We’re just not in the habit of reporting those types of “none of the above” types of votes. We did, in FL in '00, have a lot of reporting about “undervotes”, which is sort of the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/14 "2004-04-29T20:23:58Z")
I have zero sympathy for people who complain about the system yet fail to vote. If you don’t like any of the candidates, vote for a third party. Write in “Micky Mouse” as a candidate. At least that would make a statement to candidates that people want change and are willing to go to the polls to work towards it. Sitting on your lazy ass and getting drunk that day while bitching that the system will never change? It becomes a self fufilling prophecy exactly because of your inaction. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/15 "2004-04-29T20:34:23Z")
Same here than in Australia (except that the vote isn’t compulsory). Ballots without any name on them, or with insults (common), or whatever else are counted as “white” votes. They’re counted (though they are counted together with cancelled votes, for instance a ballot including a mark which could allow to identify the elector who casted it ), but not taken into account. So, it just gives some idea of the number of people who are pissed off enough to go to the polling stations just in order say they don’t want to vote for anybody. Plenty of people would like the “white votes” to be taken into account, but I can’t see how it could be possible, since it could only result in nobody being elected, in the best (worst?) case. During the last presidential election, “whites” and cancelled votes amounted to 3.4% during the first round, 5.4% during the run-off. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/16 "2004-04-30T02:32:28Z")
> [@Cunctator](#): > > Voting is compulsory in Australia at all levels of government (federal, state and local). But there is no option given for a vote for “None of the above”. In fact, since voting is done in secret, there is no way to compel anyone to vote. The compulsion relates merely to turning up at the polling booth, getting one’s name crossed off the electoral roll and putting a ballot paper (whether completed or not) in to the ballot box. If you wish to cast a protest vote, scribble all over the ballot paper or simply write nothing at all then you are free to do so. But your vote will be invlaid and won’t be counted. Interesting! What are the penalties for not showing up at the polls? Are these penalties actually applied and enforced? ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/17 "2004-04-30T02:55:44Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > Interesting! What are the penalties for not showing up at the polls? Are these penalties actually applied and enforced? The penalty for not voting is a fine. I’m not sure what the current fine is - about AUD$150 or thereabouts. Once the election has been completed the electoral office goes through the process of checking the names on the electoral roll and sending out fine notices to those who haven’t voted. If you have a reasonable excuse the fine is waived. However, “I forgot” or “I didn’t want to” would not be considered reasonable. It helps that elections are always held on Saturdays in Australia. There are provisions made for pre-poll voting and postal voting before the election day as well as absentee voting on the day itself i.e. you can cast your vote anywhere in the country for a federal election or anywhere in the state for a state election. All of this leads to voter turnouts of around 95-98%. Whether this means a better informed and more “democratic” outcome, of course, is an entirely different question and one that is routinely debated here. I suppose, if nothing else, compulsory voting forces Australians to recognise that the right to vote is a very valuable one. Anyone who attends a polling booth and still chooses not to vote is at least made aware of the right he is not exercising. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/18 "2004-04-30T03:19:44Z")
I don’t see any feasible way to count or use “non-voters”. What I would like to see here is Instant Runoff elections where the winning candidate must get at least 50% of the vote total. Here’s a chart on the popular vote results from the 2000 Presidential election: [http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm](http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm). Note that no candidate got 50% of the votes of the people that voted (and only 51.21% of the eligible voters actually cast a ballot for president!). There’s a very interesting FAQ on the subject of IR [HERE](http://www.irvoting.org/faq.asp). An excerpt from the above link that explains why IR would be good: > [@](#): > > Why Instant Runoff Voting is better than plurality elections? > > - IRV ensures majority rule. > > - IRV eliminates the “spoiler” problem. > “Spoiler” candidates or “split votes” would no longer threaten major candidates. The Nader-vs.-Gore and Perot-vs.-Bush dilemmas would not have existed with IRV. > > - IRV promotes positive campaigns. > With more candidates, and a need to get 2nd- and 3rd-choice votes, attack ads will not pay off. > > - IRV boosts voter turnout. > Experience has shown that turnout increases when voters have more choices. > > - IRV makes votes count. > IRV increases the likelihood that one’s vote will be decisive. > > Source: [http://calirv.org](http://calirv.org) Finally, you can see how a sample IR election would work [HERE.](http://www.irvoting.org/elec_index.asp) ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/19 "2004-05-01T00:26:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But anyone can sign up for an absentee ballot and vote whenever he or she chooses. This is actually subject to state laws, some of which allow anyone to have an absentee ballot if they want one, some of which require you really be “absentee”. I, for example, am not qualified to get an absentee ballot this election, since I’m not planning to travel or to become disabled. I watched a guy get grilled over his business trip, so they take this quite seriously around here. > [@](#): > > ABSENTEE BALLOTS are available at the City Clerk’s office. If you are a registered voter or will register to vote at least ten days in advance of an election, and are unable to vote at the polls on Election Day, due to absence from town or physical disability, you may obtain an absentee ballot from the City Clerk. [http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/defaulto.asp?url=/Elections/ElectionAbsentee.asp](http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/defaulto.asp?url=/Elections/ElectionAbsentee.asp) ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-not-voting-count-towards-something/242489/20 "2004-05-01T04:25:59Z")
The problem with absentee ballots is that you lose the opportunity to react to last minute news and you can’t get them back if you subsequently change your mind. I remember reading that in the last CA election when it was discovered that Schwarzenegger was a true “touchie-feelie” kind of guy, that some people who had voted early for him via absentee ballot now wanted to change their vote - and couldn’t.