Have you voted yet?

[DimPrawn]

Are the following forbidden party names?

They're all Cvnts!

Free money? Place X here.

Test your pencil by marking X here.

[darmstadt]

I'll be voting on Sunday, who for? I'll only know once I get in the booth and the magic touch wibbles down my arms to my fingers

[expat]

Surely prohibiting a party from being named "None of the above" and having an option to vote for no party are not the same thing.

They are sort of: the system does not have such an option, so some people wanted to offer it by means of a trick. This was prevented in order to stop voters from registering this opinion.

[Pondlife]

They are sort of: the system does not have such an option, so some people wanted to offer it by means of a trick. This was prevented in order to stop voters from registering this opinion.

I agree there should be some method of actively registering your disgust with what's on offer but there needs to be something to stop me registering a party entitled "Please mark this box if you do NOT want to hear about our special offers"; therefore winning by a landslide, installing AndyW as minister for ladyboys and making AtW chancellor.

[lilelvis2000]

Go green go.

[expat]

I agree there should be some method of actively registering your disgust with what's on offer but there needs to be something to stop me registering a party entitled "Please mark this box if you do NOT want to hear about our special offers"; therefore winning by a landslide, installing AndyW as minister for ladyboys and making AtW chancellor.

You mean that a majority might vote NOTA (None of the above), and they must not be allowed to do that, so the answer is not to fix the parties that people don't want, but to prevent them expressing their real opinion?

[lilelvis2000]

Come on, vote BNP.
They wont get enough power to do any real damage, but think of the entertainment they will provide with a platform in Europe and all the fuss the other home parties will make.
It might make the current members at Westminster realise just how little they are regarded, but I doubt it.

Think of the expenses - erm cash - funneled directly into BNP coffers. And I'd rather have an effective member than a goon.

[PRC1964]

While it's not quite the same as a vote for "None of the above", there is nothing to stop you from spoiling your ballot paper.

[The Lone Gunman]

The naming of a party NOTA is wrong on the grounds that someone reading the ballot paper may tick that box believing that there is a NOTA option when what they are really doing is voting for a party that may be elected. Thus, that name is not allowed.
It is perfectly allowable to create a party which states that a vote for it is a vote of no confidence in any of the other parties, but where does said party go once elected.

If there were a "real" NOTA option on the ballot then we have to contend with what happens if NOTA wins? Who then occupies the seat or how do we go about re running?

[Pondlife]

You mean that a majority might vote NOTA (None of the above), and they must not be allowed to do that, so the answer is not to fix the parties that people don't want, but to prevent them expressing their real opinion?

I was agreeing with you that there should be a way of expressing a real opinion but was disagreeing that creating a political party that claims to represent that is the best way to do it.

My only point was that you quoted legislation that is there to prevent the registration of a party with a misleading name and I think it's correct to have that in place.

There needs to be a way of actively saying "not acceptable" but it should not be a political party.