With a day to go before voting, the current US campaigns make the unprecedented case for changes in how voting patterns reflect the will of the people. Besides simply having to choose between Hillary and Trump, the people in any election anywhere should have the choice clearly specified on the ballot paper where they can tick a case that says: "None of the above". And should that vote win numerically, another election with different candidates could be held. In the US voting process as it stands today, while there appears to be choice, it seems that an increasing number of the electorate is finding itself cornered between; 1 - choosing candidates they don't want, 2 - or abstaining. But even if a majority abstains because they dont want the candidates on offer, they still get a president they didn't want anyway. He/she would have then been imposed on them by a voting minority. So what about making it possible to choose from other fresh candidates besides what is on the original menu, especially if the majority feels it to be necessary? Article 21.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says; "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." So if a majority doesn't want any of the candidates offered, that would be the peoples right as well? They do thereby have the right to be able to express such dissatisfaction as part of "taking part in their national governance". Ultimately isn't it also a fundamental human right to be able to tick the "None of the above" case on the ballot. And Article 21.3 says: "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and GENUINE elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage." So if the majority doesn't want any candidates on offer, there should be a platform on the ballot paper to make it publicly accounted for in an electoral process, rather than remaining unaccounted for because people simply abstained when they didn't like any of the candidates. The "None" vote, once determined numerically, should also be respected just like any other vote. Especially if it wins. It surely could enable a better selection process that ultimately produces better presidents for any country. The calibre of an election and its contestants can also be weighed against the "None" votes. The lower its percentage, the better the quality of an electoral season. Aren't genuine polls those where the exact will of the people can be established, including saying "No", and then conceded to? I hope I am being understood. Universities might want to debate the merits here more technically. Sometimes what I say tends to be greeted with a confusing silence.
By Hussein Lumumba Amin. 7/11/2016
_______________________________________________ WestNileNet mailing list WestNileNet@kym.net http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. _______________________________________________
