> On Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 09:46:04PM +0000, Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> > > From: Charlie Stross <charlie@antipope.org>
> >
> > > Unask that question, or I'll ask it's inverse: why did the electoral
> > > system let someone who was voted _against_ by 55-60% of the electorate
> > > retain power? (Answer: "first past the post". Which we -- in the UK and
> > > also in the USA -- have been conditioned to believe is a "fair" way of
> > > running elections. Yeah, and I have this neat bridge you might want to
> > > buy ... there's a lot to be said for a RON box on every ballot paper.)
> >
> > What would a RON box be? The British equivalent of "None of the
> > above"?
>
> Re-Open Nominations. In other words: all the above are DISQUALIFIED,
> and the election should be run again with new candidates.
"None of the above", close enough. (Although I somewhat favor a
system where if "none of the above" wins, you get what the people
voted for and skip the hassle and expense of a new election. I also
want the government to be small enough that doing without any
arbitrary elected official for a term would be no big deal.)
Thanks.
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227