Slashdot Mirror
A Legal Name Change Puts 'None of the Above' On Canadian Ballot (foxnews.com)
PolygamousRanchKid writes: The ballot to fill a legislative seat in Canada next month includes none of the above—and it's a real person. Sheldon Bergson, 46, had his name legally changed to Above Znoneofthe and is now a candidate for the Ontario legislature, the CBC reports. The election is Feb. 11. The ballot lists candidates in alphabetical order by surname so his name will be the 10th of the 10 candidates as Znoneofthe Above, according to CBC. One of his opponents is running on the line of the None of The Above Party. Maybe the American folks can learn from their cousins up north? Shouldn't every election have a line for "None of the above"? I can't wait until Little Bobby Tables hits 35.
Change it to a ranked, approval, or any of the numerous systems which are better than plurality.
Plenty of countries use, or have used, these alternatives to plurality voting. There is little evidence that they lead to better government. In fact, there is little evidence that better reflection of the will of the people leads to better government. If you want to really reform the system, we should get rid of voting based on geography. Of all the issues I care about, almost none of them are specifically tied to the state I live in. Rather than a senator representing the people of California, it would be better to have one senator representing all the nerds, another representing all the construction workers, and yet another representing all the medicare recipients, etc. Each voter can then pick whomever best represents their views and interests, regardless of where they live.
there is little evidence that better reflection of the will of the people leads to better government.
That's a pretty subjective thing to say. Arguably, the relative wealth of the western world may be due largely to its preference for democracy, which makes it harder for specific individuals or parties to wield too much power. What kind of evidence were you expecting?
No one is saying the people are effective leaders, but putting power in the hands of the stupid population is still way better giving it to the corrupt. Because of plurality voting, the people only have influence in one component (the principal component), and the two dominant parties get to control all other components. That's ridiculous. A run-off system would take all the power away from those two major parties. Can you seriously look at world history and say that there is little evidence that distributing power more evenly would be better? Come on!
If you want to really reform the system, we should get rid of voting based on geography. Of all the issues I care about, almost none of them are specifically tied to the state I live in. Rather than a senator representing the people of California, it would be better to have one senator representing all the nerds, another representing all the construction workers, and yet another representing all the medicare recipients, etc. Each voter can then pick whomever best represents their views and interests, regardless of where they live.
I agree that representation based on geography is very flawed, but I'm not sure that form of interest-based representation is much better. There's no easy answers to how to get this, but what's actually needed is a system that encourages politicians to legislate and act based on the balanced interests of all the people, rather than the current system of pandering to whoever's politically convenient at the time at the cost of people who actually need the help more.