http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595

In principle, I’m all for something which widens the scope of an election. However, given the dead ducks that were on my ballot paper last time, I was pretty hard pressed to make a sensible choice anyway, and given that I’m in a safe Tory seat, my selection made no difference anyway. What I don’t want to do is make a second choice from a list of failures when it’s hard enough to pick a single person.

A None of the Above box.

If the number of votes cast for NOTA exceeds any other candidate, the whole election must be run again with new candidates until a clear winner is found.

*wakes with a start*

I'd have thought that grossly unfair tbh.

Imagine voting went:
Candidate 1: 95%
Candidate 2: 1%
NOTA: 4%

You'd end up rerunning the election even though it had been a landslide.

Yeah, I'd say do something significant if NOTA came in the top 5, or gained a sliding scale proportion of the votes if less than five candidates stood.

The question is, if you got a 'NOTA' significant result, what do you actually do? Just having a re-run seems a pointless exercise. In theory the constituency could return no MP but is having no representation at all constitutionally viable? And is having no representation actually better than having representation you don't really agree with but who did actually get the most constituency votes?

If NOTA won the seat then yes, serious questions would need to be asked.

Jon

I'd prefer Proportional Representation...

... but the current system almost always produces an elected dictatorship. If AV produces more hung parliaments then I'm all for it.

I would guess that the possible answers would explain why there isn’t a NOTA box on ballot papers. Basically, the political elite do not want to deal with the inevitable consequences of people rejecting a system that has supplied them with a free meal ticket.

I fear you misunderstand my intention. I fully expect the order to be:

NOTA: 95%
Candidate 1: 3%
Candidate 2: 2%

In which case the election is run again with new candidates. In your original case, Candidate 1 clearly won.

I would like PR though a NOTA which if significant would mean that the person could not be in cabinet.

I think that all candidates must have lived in the constituency for a year before standing. That will eliminate all these party list candidates who are parachuted in. The deposit should be lower to get far more people standing. It was raised to discourage single issue candidates.

I think longer than that. I think they have to live there at least 5 years.

I have other, more radical ideas for politicians. Try this on for size:

If you are elected, then you must divest yourself of your job, other incomes and wealth. These will be held in trust for you and will be returned when your stint in the Commons is over. You will not be permitted to take any form of employment, here or overseas, which relies on your knowledge gained whilst a serving MP for at least 5 years. In essence, being an MP becomes an almost monastic calling, not a career enhancing step up the ladder. If I were to push it, I would say that you MUST be in full time employment before becoming an MP, and that you MUST return to the same job when leaving the house. Failure to do this will result in a delay in the return of your assets. You would have an official residence in your constancy, and a bed in a Dorm in the house of Commons. Your official residency will be average for your voters. Your income would be the national average (less charges for the upkeep of your home).

If you want to be an MP, it has to be for the right reasons. A career is not one of those.

The idea of having a proper job before becoming an MP is good. Too many now - like Cameron and Osborne and friends - go straight from university into politics without the intervening dose of working in the real world first.

Heather. There. I've said it.
That's my alternative vote.

Mark

Voting for someone who doesn't want the job gets my vote.

Three years would be a decent compromise. Technically once they become ministers they are supposed to put everything into a blind trust. Maybe it should be as soon as you become an MP.

Anyone that actually does want the job must be mentally deficient, so either someone of sound mind that doesn't want the job, or a retard?
You know where my vote goes.

Mark

If voting actually changed anything, it would be banned.