Obama '08?

I'm not so sure Obama has that much exposure in the US, and most people may recognize the name, but not much else. IMHO.

Ah yes, one of my hobby horses/pet concepts! I'm all for it (in fact, I was pleading for exactly this system here three years ago. That whole thread is interesting btw, Thomas.)

I also like Dys's "voting for anarchy" analogy.

I dont think it exists anywhere to this consistent extent though. There are, however, places that do have the "none of the above" or "against all" option on the ballot. An example I'd been following is Russia.

In Russia, in the 1993 parliamentary elections, 4,2% voted "against all" - quite a lot, considering that those were the first free national elections there in 76 years. In 1995, when the election campaign was more highly polarised between Communists and Yeltsin's forces, only 2,8% did so; but by the time the second (run-off) round of the 1996 Presidential elections came round, with a nasty and even more polarised campaign (in which a newspaper called "Ne Dai Bog" ("God Forbid") was distributed door-to-door to warn against the danger of Communist challenger Zhuganov), the number went up again to 4,8% (source).

Moreover, as noted in this thread, in the 2003 parliamentary elections, too, 4,8% voted "none of the above". That's a baffling 2,8 million Russians who took the trouble to brace the December cold and go to the voting booth to vote against everyone - more votes than for either of the two main liberal/Western-oriented parties, Yabloko and the Union of Rightists, got. (The 4,8% of 1996 amounted to even more Russians - 3,6 million of them - but that was in sunny August. ;-))

In the presidential elections the year after, several smaller groups of both the (far-)left and right as well as organisations like the Nyet Campaign and the Non-governmental Control Group actually campaigned for voters to either boycott the elections or vote "none of the above", and the Central Election Commission was alarmed enough to declare such calls "illegal". That campaign was relatively less successful though, in that only 3,5% ended up voting "against all" (source).

The most prominent appearance of this option though has been in regional elections and the vote for directly elected MPs (the Russian system has been a mix of district seats and national, proportional representation lists). Either last year or the year before, I read an article (but didn't save it, alas) about how in the elections for one region's governor, "none of the above" came in a close third, with almost 20% of the vote. And according to this Time story, "None of the above" was the top vote getter in some constituencies in the 1999 parliamentary elections, forcing re-votes in those districts. Because if more people vote "none of the above" than for any individual candidate, there needs to be a run-off!

That, of course, is rare. It is more commonplace for "against all" to do well when there is an incumbent candidate who faces no contender of significance. "Against all" is then the obvious way to protest this absence of alternatives. A Radio Free Europe item on the gubernatorial elections of 2004 (see this post) mentions two examples: "In [preliminary results from] Krasnodar Krai, Governor Aleksandr Tkachev won a second term with 84.1 percent of the vote, compared with 7.6 percent for "against all," which came in second [..]. In Murmansk Oblast, Governor Yurii Yevdokimov won a third term with 77.1 percent of the vote, according to preliminary results. His closest rival, "against all," received 10.5 percent. Both races were considered by local analysts to be "alternative-less.""

One other country that has at least occasionally used the "none of the above" option is, little known as it may be, the US! Specifically, the state of Nevada includes the option to vote for "NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES" on the ballot and in 1996, 5,608 voters did so - 1,2% of the total number of votes (source). In 2000, 3,315 Nevadans did so - 0.54% of the total (source).

Now what all these examples lack, of course, is enforcement. The option to vote against all is allowed, but remains gratuitous. The exception is where, in Russia, more voters opt for "against all" than any candidate; in that case, forcing a re-run, they wield real power. But otherwise voting "against all" has the same (lack of) effect as not voting at all.

It would indeed only be if the corresponding percentage of seats in parliament were left empty (something that would of course only be possible under proportional representation) that politicians would really get to feel it. I'd bet that if parties would actually get to face, not just political opponents, but swathes of empty seats - forcing them to ally with ever more unpreferred coalition partners to get any majority at all - they would very soon focus on tackling the apathy and alienation of whole strata of voters.

And that is the elephant in the room; more than the voters who still take the trouble to at least vote for someone, even if it's the opponent, it's the share of people who don't believe anyone anymore, who've turned away from the system altogether, that undermines democracy, basically delegitimising its claim to represent the will of the people altogether.

The pollster, of course. And I'm betting that as long as Obama continues to flat-out reject any suggestion of a presidential race, they're not going to put him on it either. Arguably reasonable enough. (The same pollster, Opinion Dynamics for Fox News, took off Condoleezza Rice from its republican list this time.)


Of course. Just talking about it we're kinda like the avant-garde ;-)

The avante garde is the vanguard, the forward element of an army. But if no one is following, then the avante garde becomes just a pack of well-armed brigands. If Obama, for reasons of policy, which can be seen to be sound from his point of view, sincerely refuses to run (not just playing coy to drum up support), being the avante garde just ends up as silliness.

As being avant-garde all too often does... ;-)

Oh, I realised that my digression above was a bit all too far off-topic, so I pasted it into a thread of its own:

Voting "against all", in Russia - and elsewhere?

On one level, it makes perfect sense that Obama isn't taking a presidential, or even vice-presidential run seriously. If he has the circumspect and sober powers of reasoning that I suspect, he has weighed his own readiness for the task, and simply decided against it. I think everything that he has done in his adult life has been done with a certain thoroughness, and I don't think his time in the Senate will be different.

I believe the man actually tries to serve his fellow man the best he can. He could have gotten a very lucrative position with a law firm, but decided to do service in public office. I think he actually did that for honorable reasons. And I think that if he ever runs for higher office, it will be because he has decided that it will be how he can best serve his fellow man - not before then. I can only pray that someone I think is one of the very few good brave public servants in politics will continue to follow his conscience, and not be sullied or tossed about by the less honorable ambitions of those who have more complicated agendas than he ever started out with.

snood, I wouldn't put Obama on a pedestal just yet. The best of men have been corrupted by politics, and that's the majority of "good men."

One of the big problems of running for any office is the high cost. Unless you're independently wealthy, money can corrupt a good person in working to get the money it takes to run for office.

We'll see in a couple of years.

I didn't say, and do not believe, that Obama or anyone else is incorruptible. From what I've seen and read of him, I think he got into public office for all the right reasons, and I believe he did it in large part to serve his fellow man. How many politicians can that be truly said about?

My brother.

Eh?

snood wrote:
I didn't say, and do not believe, that Obama or anyone else is incorruptible. From what I've seen and read of him, I think he got into public office for all the right reasons, and I believe he did it in large part to serve his fellow man. How many politicians can that be truly said about?


I wrote:
My brother.

and "heh?"

c.i., you're saying that your brother is a politician, right?

(When I first read it, I thought you addressing snood "my brother"... :-))

snood, FYI, my brother is serving his second term in the California State Legislature (10th District) by winning 76 percent of the votes.

I ticked that box in 2000. It was labeled Ralph Nader.

Could it be that Obama's advisors fear he might wind up on the ticket with Hillary Clinton? And that doing so would scar his political attractiveness for future runs? I'm thinking yes... and when the election grows closer and the mud starts flying; if Hillary's campaign is successfully scuttled (something I think probable), perhaps then he'll come out against corruption and negativity with a vision and the ability to promote it. I see no need to rush. His best shot would be with another respectable man who wouldn't so easily tarnished as Hillary.

Or, perhaps I'm dead wrong; and Hillary will captivate the American public and overcome the negative BS... which could open the door to the Presidency through the VP hallway.

I'm thinking he may just be too smart to jump in until he can see a clear and likely path to the top.

Or, just for fun… what about a grass roots third party ticket headed by John McCain and Obama in a Bi-Partisan campaign against campaign nonsense, pork barrel spending, no balanced budget amendment, no line item veto and the generally viewed as corrupt system itself? I'd add 20 hours a week to that campaign as well as offering up my vote. Win, Lose or Draw; I think that campaign would put Obama in the White House as soon as the Democratic nomination became available (if not immediately as VP).

The media will ride the Democratic horse they think can win and further the liberal agenda, and Hillary is their horse right now, and the people running the party support Hillary, so yes I think you are wrong about Obamas chances, unless Hillary takes one big nosedive for some unforeseen reason. Corruption can't be the reason, because that hasn't slowed down her hardcore support; they seem to blithely ignore it. With the media, she has an extra 15 points, and she is not going to give up the baton to Obama. If there is ever a threat of this, look for mud to start surfacing about Obama. If you wonder where it might come from, just a hint, it won't be primarily Republicans. Remember the FBI files?

OB wrote:
Or, just for fun… what about a grass roots third party ticket headed by John McCain and Obama in a Bi-Partisan campaign against campaign nonsense, pork barrel spending, no balanced budget amendment, no line item veto and the generally viewed as corrupt system itself? I'd add 20 hours a week to that campaign as well as offering up my vote. Win, Lose or Draw; I think that campaign would put Obama in the White House as soon as the Democratic nomination became available (if not immediately as VP).


Hell of a good idea, OB. You can add my vote to that team!

Dang, C.I. - that's all you had to say. I didn't know what the heck you were talking about.

Sorry 'bout that! I assumed most people already knew. That's the reason I made it clear after second thought.

C.I., we could fill volumes about what we don't know about each other on these boards.