Abstention

Last updated

Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote but does not cast a ballot. [1] Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a voter casts a ballot willfully made invalid by marking it wrongly or by not marking anything at all. A "blank voter" has voted, although their vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstaining voter has not voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered to be a protest vote (also known as a "blank vote"). Abstention is related to political apathy and low voter turnout.

Contents

An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. Abstention can also be used when someone has a certain position about an issue, but since the popular sentiment supports the opposite, it might not be politically expedient to vote according to their conscience. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or have not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest. [2] [3]

Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect attending only to contribute to a quorum. Instead, blank votes may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the legislation.

Active abstention

An active abstention can occur when a voter votes in a way that balances out their vote as if they had never voted. This has occurred many times in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. During a division (a process where a yes/no vote occurs to agree or disagree with a motion), a Member of Parliament may actively abstain by voting both "yes" and "no". This is effectively the same as not voting at all, as the outcome will not be changed by active abstention. [4] However, in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, active abstention is not possible as a Lord voting both ways will be removed from the list of votes. [5]

In another manner, an intentionally spoilt vote could be interpreted as an active abstention. Because of the nature of an abstention, only intentionally spoiled ballots could be counted as active abstention.[ citation needed ]

International and national parliamentary procedures

Comparative results of 2011 Canadian federal election with or without abstention Canadaelections2011.png
Comparative results of 2011 Canadian federal election with or without abstention

In the United Nations Security Council, representatives of the five countries holding a veto power (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) sometimes abstain rather than vetoing a measure about which they are less than enthusiastic, particularly if the measure otherwise has broad support. By convention, their abstention does not block the measure.[ citation needed ] If a majority of members of the United Nations General Assembly or one of its committees abstain on a measure, then the measure fails.

In the Council of the European Union, an abstention on a matter decided by unanimity has the effect of a yes vote; on matters decided by qualified majority it has an effect of a no vote.

In the Italian Senate, an abstention used to have the effects of a no vote. This was changed in 2017, when it was established that a measure only needed for the number of yes votes to be higher than the number of no votes in order to pass, with abstentions being counted neither as yes votes nor as no votes. [6]

In the United States House of Representatives and many other legislatures, members may vote "present" rather than for or against a bill or resolution, which has the effect of an abstention.

In the United States Senate, the Presiding Officer calls each senator's name alphabetically, and, if abstaining, the senator must give a reason for the abstention. Members may decline to vote, in committee or on the floor, on any matter which they believe would be a conflict of interest. [7] An example of a conflict was when Senator Mitch McConnell abstained when his wife Elaine Chao was nominated to positions that needed to be confirmed by the Senate; the most recent was on January 31, 2017 when Chao was confirmed as Transportation Secretary. [8] When a senator is nominated for a position that needs to be confirmed by the Senate, that senator is expected to vote "present",[ citation needed ] such as occurred in 2013 when John Kerry was nominated for the position of Secretary of State and voted "present" rather than vote for his own confirmation.

Justification

In support for this non-political strategy, some non-voters claim that voting does not make any positive difference. "If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal" is an oft-cited sentiment attributed to anarchist Emma Goldman. [9]

In addition to strategic non-voters, there are also ethical non-voters, those who reject voting outright, not merely as an ineffective tactic for change, but moreover because they view the act as either a grant of consent to be governed by the state, a means of imposing illegitimate control over one's countrymen, or both. Thus, this view holds that through voting, one necessarily finds themselves violating the non-aggression principle. Herbert Spencer noted that whether a person votes for the winning candidate, votes for a losing candidate, or abstains from voting, he will be deemed to have consented to the rule of the winning candidate, if they were to follow the doctrine of Blackstone of which Spencer stated "A rather awkward doctrine this." [10]

Criticisms

Murray Rothbard, while an American libertarian himself, criticized the New Libertarian Manifesto 's arguments that voting is immoral or undesirable: [11]

Let's put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master but idiotic if we failed to do so. Of course, there might well be circumstances—say when both masters are similar—where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest—but this is a tactical not a moral consideration. Voting would not be evil but, in such a case, less effective than the protest. But if it is morally licit and nonaggressive for slaves to vote for a choice of masters, in the same way it is licit for us to vote for what we believe the lesser of two or more evils, and still more beneficial to vote for an avowedly libertarian candidates.

Samuel Edward Konkin III responded: [12]

Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the "underground railway?" Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters' Party is elected.

Alternatives

The German philosopher and founder of the "Party of nonvoters" ( Partei der Nichtwähler  [ de ]) Werner Peters  [ de ] describes in his 2021 published book "Nonvoters into parliament - Refreshment of democracy" (Nichtwähler ins Parlament – Auffrischung der Demokratie) an institutionalisation of nonvoter proportions. Peters proposes to treat abstentions like regular votes and allocate proportionatly the number of abstentions to seats. Though other than with regular votes, seats are offered after the vote to randomly chosen citizens, similar to citizens' assemblies. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Libertarian Party (United States)</span> American political party

The Libertarian Party (LP) is a political party in the United States that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government. The party was conceived in August 1971 at meetings in the home of David F. Nolan in Westminster, Colorado, and was officially formed on December 11, 1971, in Colorado Springs. The organizers of the party drew inspiration from the works and ideas of the prominent Austrian school economist, Murray Rothbard. The founding of the party was prompted in part due to concerns about the Nixon administration, the Vietnam War, conscription, and the introduction of fiat money.

Libertarians promote individual liberty and seek to minimize the role of the state. The abortion debate is mainly within right-libertarianism between cultural liberals and social conservatives as left-libertarians generally see it as a settled issue regarding individual rights, as they support legal access to abortion as part of what they consider to be a woman's right to control her body and its functions. Religious right and intellectual conservatives have attacked such libertarians for supporting abortion rights, especially after the demise of the Soviet Union led to a greater divide in the conservative movement between libertarians and social conservatives. Libertarian conservatives claim libertarian principles such as the non-aggression principle (NAP) apply to human beings from conception and that the universal right to life applies to fetuses in the womb. Thus, some of those individuals express opposition to legal abortion. According to a 2013 survey, 5.7/10 of American Libertarians oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.

A majority, also called an absolute majority, sometimes simple majority, to distinguish it from related terms, is more than half of the total. It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. For example, if a group consists of 31 individuals, a majority would be 16 or more individuals, while having 15 or fewer individuals would not constitute a majority. "Majority" can be used to specify the voting requirement, as in a "majority vote", which means more than half of the votes cast. However, an absolute majority requires more than half all votes including ballots of abstention.

In parliamentary procedure, a division of the assembly, division of the house, or simply division is a method of taking a vote that physically counts members voting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protest vote</span> Vote cast in an election as a form of political protest

A protest vote is a vote cast in an election to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the choice of candidates or the current political system. Protest voting takes a variety of forms and reflects numerous voter motivations, including political apathy. Where voting is compulsory, casting a blank vote is available for those who do not wish to choose a candidate, or to protest. Unlike abstention elsewhere, blank votes are counted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Justin Raimondo</span> American journalist (1951–2019)

Justin Raimondo was an American author and the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He described himself as a "conservative-paleo-libertarian."

A supermajority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level of support which is greater than the threshold of more than one-half used for a simple majority. Supermajority rules in a democracy can help to prevent a majority from eroding fundamental rights of a minority, but they can also hamper efforts to respond to problems and encourage corrupt compromises at times when action is taken. Changes to constitutions, especially those with entrenched clauses, commonly require supermajority support in a legislature. Parliamentary procedure requires that any action of a deliberative assembly that may alter the rights of a minority have a supermajority requirement, such as a two-thirds vote. In consensus democracy the supermajority rule is applied in most cases.

"None of the above" (NOTA), or none for short, also known as "against all" or a "scratch" vote, is a ballot option in some jurisdictions or organizations, designed to allow the voter to indicate disapproval of the candidates in a voting system. It is based on the principle that consent requires the ability to withhold consent in an election, just as they can by voting "No" on ballot questions. It must be contrasted with "abstention", in which a voter does not cast a ballot.

Unanimity is agreement by all people in a given situation. Groups may consider unanimous decisions as a sign of social, political or procedural agreement, solidarity, and unity. Unanimity may be assumed explicitly after a unanimous vote or implicitly by a lack of objections. It does not necessarily mean uniformity and can sometimes be the opposite of majority in terms of outcomes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Faithless elector</span> Elector who does not vote for the candidate for whom they had pledged to vote

In the United States Electoral College, a faithless elector is an elector who does not vote for the candidates for U.S. President and U.S. Vice President for whom the elector had pledged to vote, and instead votes for another person for one or both offices or abstains from voting. As part of United States presidential elections, each state selects the method by which its electors are to be selected, which in modern times has been based on a popular vote in most states, and generally requires its electors to have pledged to vote for the candidates of their party if appointed. A pledged elector is only considered a faithless elector by breaking their pledge; unpledged electors have no pledge to break. The consequences of an elector voting in a way inconsistent with their pledge vary from state to state.

A casting vote is a vote that someone may exercise to resolve a tied vote in a deliberative body. A casting vote is typically by the presiding officer of a council, legislative body, committee, etc., and may only be exercised to break a deadlock.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Libertarianism in the United States</span> Origin, history and development of libertarianism in the United States

In the United States, libertarianism is a political philosophy promoting individual liberty. According to common meanings of conservatism and liberalism in the United States, libertarianism has been described as conservative on economic issues and liberal on personal freedom, often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism. Broadly, there are four principal traditions within libertarianism, namely the libertarianism that developed in the mid-20th century out of the revival tradition of classical liberalism in the United States after liberalism associated with the New Deal; the libertarianism developed in the 1950s by anarcho-capitalist author Murray Rothbard, who based it on the anti-New Deal Old Right and 19th-century libertarianism and American individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner while rejecting the labor theory of value in favor of Austrian School economics and the subjective theory of value; the libertarianism developed in the 1970s by Robert Nozick and founded in American and European classical liberal traditions; and the libertarianism associated with the Libertarian Party, which was founded in 1971, including politicians such as David Nolan and Ron Paul.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections in California</span> Overview of the procedure of elections in the U.S. state of California

Elections in California are held to fill various local, state and federal seats. In California, regular elections are held every even year ; however, some seats have terms of office that are longer than two years, so not every seat is on the ballot in every election. Special elections may be held to fill vacancies at other points in time. Recall elections can also be held. Additionally, statewide initiatives, legislative referrals and referendums may be on the ballot.

Deliberative assemblies – bodies that use parliamentary procedure to arrive at decisions – use several methods of voting on motions. The regular methods of voting in such bodies are a voice vote, a rising vote, and a show of hands. Additional forms of voting include a recorded vote and balloting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections in the District of Columbia</span>

The District of Columbia holds general elections every two years to fill various D.C. government offices, including mayor, attorney general, members of the D.C. Council, members of the D.C. State Board of Education, and members of its Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. Special elections may be held to fill vacancies at other points in time. Additionally, citywide ballot measures may be proposed and voted on.

In parliamentary procedure, the verb to table has the opposite meaning in the United States from that of the rest of the world:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 United States Senate election in Alaska</span> 2010 Senate election

The 2010 United States Senate election in Alaska took place on November 2, 2010, to elect a member of the United States Senate to represent the State of Alaska, alongside 33 U.S. Senate elections in other states, elections in all states for the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as various state and local elections. The general election was preceded by primary elections which were held on August 24, 2010. Scott McAdams, the Mayor of Sitka, became the Democratic nominee; Joe Miller, an attorney and former federal magistrate, became the Republican nominee after defeating incumbent U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski. Miller was endorsed by the Tea Party movement and former Governor Sarah Palin. Murkowski announced that despite her defeat in the primary, she would run in the general election as a write-in candidate.

In the United States, a contingent election is used to elect the president or vice president if no candidate receives a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed. A presidential contingent election is decided by a special vote of the United States House of Representatives, while a vice-presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States Senate. During a contingent election in the House, each state delegation votes en bloc to choose the president instead of representatives voting individually. Senators, by contrast, cast votes individually for vice president.

Combined approval voting (CAV) is an electoral system where each voter may express approval, disapproval, or indifference toward each candidate. The winner is the most-approved candidate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 United States Senate election in Montana</span>

The 2024 United States Senate election in Montana will be held on November 5, 2024, to elect a member of the United States Senate to represent the state of Montana. Incumbent Senator Jon Tester is seeking a fourth term in office. This race is one of three Democratic-held U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2024 in a state Donald Trump won in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, alongside Ohio and West Virginia. Tester's re-election is considered essential for Democrats' chances to retain the Senate majority in 2024. Primary elections will take place on June 4, 2024. The last time Republicans won this seat was in 2000.

References

  1. ↑ "Frequently Asked Questions about RONR (Question 6)". The Official Robert's Rules of Order Web Site. The Robert's Rules Association. Retrieved 9 October 2023.
  2. ↑ Hernandez, Raymond and Christopher Drew (7 December 2007). "It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 October 2023.
  3. ↑ "Frequently Asked Questions about RONR (Question 9)". The Official Robert's Rules of Order Web Site. The Robert's Rules Association. Retrieved 9 October 2023.
  4. ↑ Voted both aye and no – from The Public Whip. Published 24 April 2012 and retrieved 4 May 2012.
  5. ↑ Recording Abstentions by Lord Norton, from lordsoftheblog.net. Published 20 February 2011 and retrieved 4 May 2011.
  6. ↑ "La mini-rivoluzione del Senato. Cosa cambia col nuovo regolamento". agi.it. 18 December 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2022.
  7. ↑ "Voting Procedure". Rules of the United States Senate. Archived from the original on 1 June 2011. Retrieved 25 July 2011.
  8. ↑ "U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress - 1st Session".
  9. ↑ Goldman's actual writings expressed a distinct sentiment: "There is no hope even that woman, with her right to vote, will ever purify politics." Goldman, Emma (1911), "The Tragedy of Women's Emancipation", Anarchism and Other Essays (Second revised ed.), Mother Earth Publishing Association, pp. 219–31
  10. ↑ Spencer, Herbert (1851), The Right to Ignore the State
  11. ↑ Rothbard, Murray (10 November 1980), Konkin on Libertarian Strategy
  12. ↑ Samuel Edward Konkin III, Reply to Rothbard
  13. ↑ "Nichtwähler ins Parlament (2021)". Werner Peters (in German). Retrieved 26 August 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.