NOTA, bene?

I had occasion to comment on a Newsnight piece and ended up with an exchange (a very civilised one), with another poster, on the subject of the vote and how it may be used.

I started from a position that I was having doubts that it is effective as I had once thought. The we got onto the 'power', or not, of 'None of the Above'.

Reshuffle Questions

Whilst perversely satisfying to solemnly tell those who would lead that they are not up to the job, it hardly serves my, or my kids' futures well to smugly bail out. The void must, and will be filled.

Thing is, I am stumped as to what I am able to effect in getting it filled with anything, or anyone I could deem worthy.

How to do this bears consideration.

As a positive, proactive soul, I hate to write this now, but my first thoughts are turning, sadly, to simply ensuring that whatever I, and others do do, the 'victors' do not see fit to claim a small percentage of a a woeful turnout as ' a 'mandate from the people'.

It isn't. They shouldn't. And I am damned if I am going to let anyone speak for me when I have not given them my proxy to do so.

So, poke away, my friend. If the flight is true and the point sharp, there is many an overfilled, and heated, balloon in dire need of pricking.

---

I hesitate to write again, as it is a bit 'off topic', but would humbly suggest to the programme makers and any others who might stumble across these pages that a frank analysis (if that is possible any more without agenda and spin and ratings creeping in with those asking, and answering, relevant questions) of such disenfranchisement from the electoral process might be worth pursuing.

Those who post here are really quite few. Those who read, I suspect not that many more, and even those who watch not a great % of the total voting population. And we are the ones interested... and who care enough to contribute (or complain - in business a customer who does that is considered gold dust. In government or its satellites such folk seem deemed to be the AntiChrist).

I have often alluded, darkly, to my vote being a personal weapon of change.

But I am not so sure. While I am pretty sure those I might wield it at now see it is a tool of little use, at least on a personal level; hence all the energy that is now taken away from convincing the individual and moved to mass efforts via mass media and populism (though the topic of this post which has inspired this exchange would suggest an odd plan at work indeed).

Across the board, from local to national, I barely know what my elected representatives do or say, especially on specifics. And certainly not enough, once in several years (they move so much in that time as well), to pin my support or disapproval on them in any meaningful way. Hence, at best, the voting intention is more 'averaged out' en bloc, which lets the wanting survive, whilst perhaps making it trickier for the real, effective, 'can do' champions to thrive. I only 'know' of those who get themselves in the paper in front of a Post Office or somesuch.

And if it is (my perception at least) that, when it comes to matters of high import, all but the most principled will vote with their Party, as instructed by their Whips, what value my proxy then? I am giving, via this person, carte blanche 'approval' to a party and often the whim of a Leader I might totally disagree with.

I had not appreciated Mr. Blair had 'addressed' NOTA before (effectively denying it a legitimate 'voice' in 1995), in this way, and if in this manner it shows how much he feared what it represents.

However it seems typical of the day that he devoted energy and machinations to a ban, rather than seeing the problem and working on solutions to address it.

Maybe there can come some who are more proactive and positive. Do it well, and they might yet get my vote. If it matters to them.

Times - Voters have the power to punish failure - Yes. But I would prefer to reward talent and ability first.

Times - Think tank: Give voters a direct line to power - “if voting changed anything they’d ban it”