The United Kingdom recently stepped into it’s 4^th General Election Campaign in nearly 10 years as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak shockingly took the UK to the polls. Nonetheless, the issue that pervades this piece is not the rigmarothic and stale party-political conversations that may dominate media discussion of the election: whether Sunak should have called the election or how much the Conservative’s lose by and so on. 

Rather a more interesting point of discussion may be with whether this election marks a point for us to reconsider our relationship with voting or more specifically, the options that will appear on your ballot on the 4^thJuly. Currently your ballot will only feature the option to vote for a stream of candidates; there is no option to not vote for someone beyond: a) not turning up to vote or b) spoiling your ballot- is this something perhaps something we should reconsider?

Luke Power’s blog on Mores back in March noted the general lack of enthusiasm towards the two leading party leaders in the UK- Rishi Sunak of the Conservatives and Keir Starmer of Labour. He argued against the lesser of two evil arguments that stipulates that we must vote to avoid the worse candidate- instead, he suggested that we may achieve political change through the tool of not voting at all. What if the conclusion here is not that we should not vote but rather we should implement an additional voting option: a ‘none of the above’ (NOTA) voting option to allow voters to express their dissatisfaction in a formalised manner. 

As Luke Power’s piece implied, the UK currently sits in a period of relative political apathy and unenthusiasm. This, coupled with significant levels of political apathy that go back until the 20^th century, might suggest that something needs to change. Potentially, a NOTA voting option might be the best means to tackling political apathy. Moreover, perhaps we should also implement a NOTA voting option as this proves to be the best means to protect the individual autonomy of voters. 

The Apathy Angle 

The UK’s forthcoming General Election marks a noteworthy turning point for political apathy in the UK: both major candidates to be Prime Minister, Sunak and Starmer are arguably failing to massively inspire the voting population about their leadership or their policy platform. This comes following a tumultuous 15 or so years for the UK’s political and economic institutions: a global recession in 2008, the subsequent austerity programme, MPs expenses scandal, Scotland’s attempt at independence, Brexit, a global pandemic and a state enforced lockdown. 

In this regard, there might not be a better time for voters to believe in the political and economic institutions that so heavily impact their lives and feel that politicians represent them and can deliver change for them. Yet the 2024 General Election feels like a continuation of political apathy rather than the end of it. 

It is not an apocalyptic state, but we should be concerned. A recent YouGov poll on 23 May found that 10% thought the Conservatives best represented ‘change’, compared to 34% for Labour; meanwhile 43% said neither and 13% said don’t know. Now, 43% for neither does not mean to say that all the 43% are apathetic or sick of politics, they may simply believe in other parties who were not listed in the poll, but it is still concerning that only 34% believe the major opposition party would represent change.

Additionally, a recent poll conducted by Ipsos found more evidence of dissatisfaction with the wider UK political system with only 27% feeling satisfied with the way democracy works in the UK and only 17% feeling that the UK Government represents their feelings and views. Likewise, there is also a sense from voters of powerless over this situation: 71% of UK participants felt that the UK’s economic system was rigged against them. Most notably for this argument- only 53% feel they can influence political change through voting. On the issue of trust directly, the Office for National Statistics found in 2022 that 20% of voters trusted political parties.

However, you might suggest that this is a flash in the pan and an example of recency bias- perhaps the tide will turn. Nonetheless, there is significant evidence that points to current political apathy being part of a long-term trend. For instance, the 2013 British Social Attitudes Survey found that from 1983-2012, electoral turnout, party identification, the notion of there being a ‘duty to vote’, trust in the Government, system political efficacy and personal political efficacy largely declined. To link this to electoral turnout, non-voters amounted for 40.6% of registered voters in the 2001 General Election, 38.6% in the 2005 General Election, 34.9% in the 2010 General Election, 33.6% in the 2015 General Election, 31.2% in the 2017 General Election and 32.7% in the 2019 General Election. This contrasts with regular 70% turnout in the 1997 General Election and before. 

With the above political apathy clear, where does this leave NOTA voting? NOTA voting is not the silver bullet to political apathy but it may provide a way through our current quagmire. In some sense, it provides a formalised way for dissatisfied voters to actively engage with the electoral political process. The current system of dissatisfied voters either a) not voting or b) spoiling the ballot clearly does not do well enough to formally codify voters’ dissatisfaction. At least with a NOTA option we can formally register political apathy in an electoral sense; in the same way that prior elections may inform how political parties move forwards and progress, perhaps a codified and formalised NOTA voting option is the best means for us to properly tackle political apathy- it becomes too significant to simply ignore. 

The Autonomy Angle

Nonetheless, some have already argued that a NOTA voting option only provides a superficial solution to apathy, as noted by Richard Berry here. Berry’s argument is that it is superficial as it does not focus on the wider issues in electoral democracy- whether that be the electoral system, the candidate selection procedure or support for candidates. Berry has a point, but this does not negate the impact of NOTA voting; in other words, admitting that something is not the silver bullet does not necessitate that it is superficial. In the same way that an individual football player does not singlehandedly cause his team to win a football match, this does not mean that their impact was purely superficial.

However, grant Berry his point and we can still advance a strong argument for NOTA voting and specifically, one that may be stronger than the apathy angle: by appealing to individual autonomy. Philosopher Joseph Raz famously contended that individual autonomy is the absence of external factors. But to act autonomously means an individual’s decision making must be informed and self-determined and their actions must align with their preferences; in this sense, you would not call a misled man autonomous or if a graduate who has to accept a job that their parents wants rather than themselves or an alcoholic who insists they do not want to drink but continue to drink.

When we look at NOTA voting, it becomes more intuitive that without NOTA voting we may be undermining individual autonomy. For instance, without NOTA voting people may assume that they do not want to vote; there may be an automatic feeling that it is not for them. Whereas with a formalised NOTA voting option, we may encourage people to try to engage with the electoral system and the choices ahead of them, regardless of whether they feel that politics is not for them. 

Moreover, without a NOTA voting option we are implicitly shaping the options that are presented to voters- they have to fit within party political boxes as there is no formalised option for voters to express that the parties do not represent them. 

Lastly, with a NOTA voting option, we make it easier for voters to act in line with their preference not to vote. While there is the option for voters to spoil their ballot or not turn up, this may be viewed as a wasted vote- after all, not many political commentators on election night are agonising about the number of spoiled ballots or those who did not turn up. However, with a formalised NOTA option, people may feel that this would not be wasted as it is could be a more legitimate expression of dissatisfaction- voters may not feel like they are compelled to vote.

What’s next

Suppose we do adopt a NOTA voting option, it might be worth considering the hypothetical scenario that the NOTA vote reaches a certain significant threshold or even receives the most votes on a constituency or national basis. For instance, should a certain threshold of NOTA votes trigger a re-run of an election or the proposal of different candidates. This might not fundamentally change the policies that parties propose but just the face that purports them.

Perhaps more radically, if the NOTA option receives a certain threshold nationally, should this trigger a citizens assembly on electoral reform where individuals can deliberate and discuss the options ahead. This solution may be for the birds, but it could couple NOTA with more substantive policy reforms and help avoid the worry that implementing NOTA would be purely superficial.

Nevertheless, when election day comes and the results arrive, we should be agonising about those that did not turn up to vote and about what it says for our wider political system or individual autonomy of voters. Rethinking our relationship with voting will start with seemingly innocuous thoughts about low voter turnout and political satisfaction but reforming our relationship with voting may start with adopting NOTA voting.