No confidence vote: A voice for the disenfranchised?
Originally published on 3 News (Newshub) on 03/09/2014
This year’s election campaign has been among the most colourful in New Zealand’s history.
But with the mud flying and the Dirty Politics revelations still fresh in voters’ minds, is there a danger the public will lose interest in the election long before September 20 rolls around?
If the 2011 election is anything to go by – only 74 percent of eligible voters bothered to cast a ballot, the lowest turnout since 1887 – and with National in a seemingly unassailable position, there are growing fears voters will register their disinterest by doing nothing at all on election day.
But are New Zealand’s non-voters politically apathetic or politically frustrated? And is it time we had an option on the ballot to give the disenfranchised a voice?
Dr Bryce Edwards, lecturer of politics at the University of Otago, says it makes sense to incorporate a ‘no confidence’ or ‘none-of-the-above’ ballot option as people are “voting with their feet”, and sustained low voter turnout is a sign democracy is failing.
“The election boycott is forcing a debate about what might be wrong in terms of government, politics and elections,” says Dr Edwards. “That’s a good thing, and it’s some sort of victory for those that have stayed away from the polling booths - regardless of their reasons.”
Dr Edwards says a “formal mechanism in the ballot papers for citizens to register their unhappiness” would help differentiate between those protesting the electoral system and the parties on offer, and those who are simply not interested.
David Damore, a political expert from the University of Las Vegas who has researched the no confidence vote, says even though “in principal” it makes it possible for voters to send a clear signal of discontent or protest, casting the ballot often carries no concrete consequences.
Whether the vote can really be used to effectively send a political message or is akin to a wasted vote depend how the option is structured, says Dr Damore. If the winner is the candidate who gets the most votes regardless of whether a none-of-the-above vote comes out with more ticks, it is in practice inconsequential.
“[But] with a none-of-the-above option, the intent of the voter can be more easily discerned,” says Dr Damore.
Dr Raymond Miller, associate professor of political science at the University of Auckland, says even if the option existed he “doubts it would be taken up by many voters”.
“How many voters would go to the trouble of visiting the polling booth in order to register a none-of-the-above vote? […] A more attractive alternative – but one I accept has lower overall impact – is to simply not turn up.”
Dr Miller says public opinion on the subject would need to be tested before any changes to the current system are made: “Although I wonder if purposeful non-voters would want to participate in such an exercise.”
But Dr Edwards says even non-voters who aren’t consciously sending a message of protest need to be listened to.
“Their lack of action still indicates that there is something wrong in democracy. The fact that they’re not excited or enthused by the political parties and candidates is still a problem, even if we label it as apathy.”
Twenty-nine-year-old Jonnie Barnard, a production manager, isn’t planning to vote in this election.
He says he’s not politically apathetic, but rather sees no point in choosing between two governments which he finds equally unattractive.
“I refuse to help perpetuate a system that only serves a select few, regardless of which political party is in power,” says Mr Barnard.
“Sure, things move slightly left and then slightly right, but there are never really any real changes. I think by not voting I’m helping increase imbalance.”
Dr Edwards estimates that as much as a third of eligible voters may stay at home this year, and though recognising that “missing million” might not be enough to get a no confidence box on the ballot, conversation on the topic is getting “louder and louder”.
The Electoral Commission says adding the option would require legislative change and be a matter for Parliament.
- 3 News