‘Idiot’ or assorted synonyms for ‘stupid’ have been used to criticise those who do not vote. ‘Idiot’ itself is derived from the Greek ‘ἰδιώτης’ referring to anything personal or ‘private’ individuals who were not political officeholders or professionals, being retroactively applied to those who forwent public engagement in Athenian democracy. In this sense, the first ‘non-voters’ were considered ‘idiots’. However, in our current political climate, we must question this assertion.

We are living in a time where faith in democracy and trust in institutions is at record lows, manifesting itself in low voter turnout and increased support for populist disruptor parties like Reform UK. The current First Past the Post system does not respond to voters’ needs, struggling to prop up a two-party system as voters are no longer convinced to support either major party at the very least to keep the other out or that it ensures stability. There are also the day-to-day struggles that many members of the public must contend with such as insecure employment and the cost-of-living. If ‘vote Liberal Democrat’ is not a convincing enough argument, is it unreasonable to not vote under these circumstances?

The Liberal Democrats believe that reforms such as Proportional Representation and better civics education can help to ameliorate such ill feeling and improve engagement by making our politics more representative and responsive. However, would these fully resolve the harm done by our confrontational political culture? Should voters be prevented from participating in elections if they believe that none of the options available appeal to them?

None of the Above (NOTA) is used in fifteen confirmed democratic nations as well as the US state of Nevada. This comes in different varieties, differing in how they operate and what effect they have. NOTA can be an explicit option on ballots papers or may be registered when voters submit unfilled ballots (often called ‘blank votes’).

Under majoritarian voting systems, where there can only be one winner, NOTA can effectively be treated as a participant, having a chance to ‘win’ on the same terms as an actual candidate were it to achieve a majority or winning plurality. In such an eventuality, a victory for NOTA could result in a seat remaining vacant for a term, being filled by appointment or lottery, or recontested in a new election potentially with different candidates. However, as in India and Nevada, NOTA can have no substantive impact with the highest polling candidate being elected regardless albeit with a noticeable question mark over their mandate.

Our party could support NOTA as a feature of FPTP if it were to have a significant impact like instigating a do-over election. With voter apathy surpassing the winning margins of candidates in 611 out of 650 seats in 2024, NOTA could accommodate alienated voters while demonstrating the follies of FPTP. Although, with momentum gathering behind the campaign for electoral reform, this form of NOTA could be co-opted to retain FPTP and stymie beneficial change.

Under proportional voting systems, where there may be multiple winners, NOTA could still operate. With Reopen Nominations (RON) being a transferrable option available in many British and Irish university student union elections, this form of NOTA could trigger a do-over election. The primary form of NOTA under PR, as seen in Spain and Columbia, is blank votes, whereby unfilled ballots would raise the electoral quota that candidates must meet to secure election. With our party officially favouring Single Transferable Voting, this form could be incorporated albeit as a non-transferable option separate from the preferential ranking of candidates.

At present, the only legitimate means that UK voters have of expressing discontent are protest voting, not voting or casting spoilt ballots. The first is dangerous as it can give an inexperienced, extreme party lucky enough to win a majority under the failing FPTP system a blank cheque to fulfil any campaign pledge it wishes, even those likely to denigrate voters. The second is unsatisfactory as it limits democratic engagement while attracting criticism or derision for a personally rational decision. And the third is inarticulate as any coherent expression is not reflected in a final result and counted the same as an incorrectly filled-in ballot paper. In general principle, NOTA would be a safer, more inclusive and clearer means of expressing discontent.

Throughout history, democratic reforms have been criticised for being motivated by partisan advantage, with our support for PR being no exception. NOTA may be unique in this respect as it could not be said to benefit any one party. If our party were to support this as part of a wider programme, it would signal a genuine desire to strengthening our democracy for all, not just those willing to support us.

* Samuel James Jackson is the Chair of the Policy Committee of the Yorkshire and the Humber Liberal Democrats and had served as the Liberal Democratic candidate in Halifax during the 2024 general election.