Jump to content

Talk:Negative voting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please cite sources[edit]

The original author should cite sources for this concept rather than just their own web page. My own search of this term turned up a different definition. The encyclopedic relevance of this article needs to be proven as soon as possible, or the article should be submitted for deletion. --Stevietheman 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

George Hara 13:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My initial thought was to name the topic "Non-confidence voting", but I decided for "Negative voting" because this includes various methods, so, I considered it was more general and can later be split in several parts to include things like: a way of mathematically decreasing the positive votes, a way to negate (but not mathematically decrease) positive votes, and the non-confidence voting.

I can't give you a clear-cut reference, but the vote of non-confidence is applied in various places (usually in state / government / parliament relations), with various percentages, but I only gave a specific case. You can open any Constitution of any democracy and see that the non-confidence vote exists and is applied in various ways.

Rather than submitting the article for deletion, I suggest you help *add* information. It's true that most people don't know about negative voting, and it is applied far less than positive voting, but that's no reason to say it doesn't exist. (I would be curious to know what definition your search turned up.)

If you want to delete my website reference, I have no problem with that (as a matter of fact I added it after I created the article because I was in doubt).

Here are some examples of where the negative voting is currently applied:

1. Negative voting (here are descriptions of various voting systems) http://wmu.8k.com/secular/voting.html

[quote=""] Negative Voting

A common feature of elections everywhere is the protest vote, which also manifests itself as the tactical vote in many systems. Some voters do not want to get any particular party into power, but rather to stop one particular party getting into power. The system should thus be changed to allow them to exercise their democratic franchise in the way they see fit - they should be given the ability to use their vote, not for a party, but against a party. [/quote]

2. Negative voting http://cruisecontrol.sourceforge.net/decisions.html

[quote=""] A vote takes one of three forms:

A positive vote. This means the you wish for the request to be implemented and are willing to aid in its implementation.

No vote. This is the same as not voting at all, but indicates to the group that you explicitly waive your right to vote.

Negative vote. This means the you do not want the request to be implemented. Explanation of why the feature should not be implemented must be included in the email. [/quote]

3. Non-confidence voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Canada

[quote] If the Commons passes a motion of no confidence in the government, the prime minister and his cabinet are expected either to resign their offices or to ask for Parliament to be dissolved so that a general election can be held. [/quote]

4. Non-confidence voting http://www.pgss.mcgill.ca/COUNCIL0203/doc02aug_12_3.htm

[quote=""] Part XII: Removal from office

... b. By a non-confidence vote by Council. Such a vote shall be the result of a motion endorsed by at least ten voting members of Council. ... To be resolved, the non-confidence motion must be passed by either;

i. two-thirds of the total voting membership of Council, or ii. two votes of Council with no member in opposition, one at each of two consecutive Council meetings... [/quote]

George Hara 14:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is an example of a non-confidence voting proposal (see "70% majority of disagree votes"). The concept of negative / non-confidence voting exists even though most people don't know where to... put their finger exactly.


[quote=""] Proposal IX (Deprecation) (Vote) (Discuss)

If any specific proposal from I to VII (or proposal X) receives a 70% majority of disagree votes, Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion should explicitly rule it out as a criterion for speedy deletion. [/quote]

OK, all sounds fair. Let's stub it. Also, if you want to add your link back, along with other links, please have at it. I don't have the time to expand the article right now, but stubbing it will alert others that more content needs to be added. I'll also restore links back to it from other articles. --Stevietheman 20:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, do you think your content is covered in Disapproval voting? Perhaps your content could be merged into that, and Negative voting could then be changed to redirect to Disapproval voting. --Stevietheman 20:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

George Hara 21:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the disproval voting and negative voting are the same thing as far as I can see now.

Initially, I thought they were different because of these sentences: "Unlike most voting systems, it requires that only negative measures or choices be presented to the voter or representative. If used to select candidates for an office, or for continuation to a next round of voting or play, it is either single- or multi-winner, as *everyone who is not disapproved of is in effect a winner*, for that round."

But, in contrast with that, the non-confidence voting is a subclass of disproval / negative voting normally used *after* a positive vote (= with an "in favor" qualified majority), not instead nor mixed. Basically, the non-confidence voting first allows representative democracy to function as usual, then, if a second body of decision (this could be the people which act as in a direct democracy) decides to revoke the representatives' decisions, it can do so with a vote of non-confidence (not necessarily toward the representatives, but also toward the decisions of the representatives).

In the case of the state, this means that the representative democracy can function normally (without delays or interference), but can still be controlled by direct democracy (through non-confidence voting). Today, this happens only on a small scale: parliament - president - government (and it's there for good reasons).

I think my negative voting article should be redirected; it should still remain there for others to find by name. As for the non-confidence voting, it should either be a separate article or be a section in the disproval voting. In a way, I feel it should be separate but closely related (and I believe the two paragraphs above make a good description).

I don't have experience with moving / deleting / redirecting / merging articles, so maybe we come to a common form and decision.

One more thing... I don't understand this paragraph from disproval voting ("Arguments for and against"): "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." The second sentence, I think, refers to being seen by other to vote against (though the vote is secret!), but the first sentence beats me.

I can do the redirect if you want me to. This will preserve "Negative voting" as a Wikipedia search term.

As for questions you have with Disapproval voting, you can bring all that up in their discussion. As far as merging, you are always free to add or modify any content you like in that article--just be prepared to defend your content. That's why it's best to raise the questions in the discussion first. Hope this helps. --Stevietheman 22:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

George Hara 23:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, please make the redirect. I'll see if they accept the non-confidence voting. Thanks!

Done. --Stevietheman 05:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)