Disapproval voting: Difference between revisions

m
imported>KVenzke
imported>KVenzke
Line 26:
Given the prevalence of disapproval as a tool of government, including the [[criminal law]] and [[diplomacy|diplomatic relations]], some fail to see voting as a positive and voluntary choice of a desirable outcome. To these, the electoral and legal systems are in general about reducing the losses, not pursuing the possible gains, in political cooperation with each other. This negative view of politics itself is very commonly associated with [[libertarianism]].
 
Other advocates of disapproval voting argue that they simply wish to extend to the citizen the powers that are already ceded to the executive, in terms of structure, e.g. many voters formally disapproving should tell the president when to exercise the veto. This is one of many arguments made for [[deliberative democracy]], and advocated by some in the USA, e.g. [[Ralph Nader]].
 
Detractors of this view of civic life note that the complexity of widespread public consultation and letting the public vote down necessary but unpopular expenditures is contrary to the spirit of a [[representative democracy]], and is an impractical and untrusting measure. In part this is a reaction to the negative view of politics, parties, and platforms inherent in any scheme of disapproval.
Line 32:
Advocating disapproval or approval voting may be seen as taking a position on the [[tolerances versus preferences]] problem. Some propose that disapproval is more likely to trigger tolerance ideas of the voter, e.g. as in a poor woman choosing a lifetime mate, while approval is more likely to trigger preferences, e.g. as in shopping. This suggestion, like most advocacy of voting systems, is controversial as it implies that voters cannot measure both tolerances and preferences for themselves, and come to conclusions that consider both.
 
Another issue is that expressions of disapproval in many societies, especially in [[Asia]], are taken as anti-social. In the government of [[China]], which is structured more as a bureaucracy than as a democracy, an official who rises a level is ratified by others at the level he is entering - no other candidates are presented but abstention as a protest is not uncommon.
 
Support in this [[ratification vote]] of less than 67-80% is taken as a strong disapproval - and most likely ends the rise of that individual at his current level. In any such structure, formal disapproval voting may lead to less honest outcomes, if the peer pressure not to be seen to formally disapprove of anyone is extreme.
Anonymous user