Is there a role for Gah! in politics?

The short tangent explored in Pindar’s poll about the inclusion or otherwise of the Gah! Option inspired me to ask a question that is dear to my political heart:

Should ‘None of the Above’ (cf Gah!) be included on all ballot papers, and more importantly, tallied and given appropriate weight?

The argument for would be that abstention is a long cherished right, and that currently since abstainers are not counted, politicians can get away with pleasing only the small minorities that bother to go out and vote. Thus minority views tend to prevail under the guise of a ‘mandate’ whereas in fact the majority felt they were unable to vote positively because the choices on offer did not fit their views. Having abstentions count (these are actively cast votes for Gah!)would force politicians to engage with the silent majority, because they would not be able to form a government without a true majority. Thus they would have to excite people enough to want to vote for them, rather than abstain.

The argument against might be that people are naturally lazy, do not have any wish to engage in politics and therefore abstention is not a positive act of rebellion but one of sheer apathy. Because the unengaged or the wilfully destructive would always be in the majority, abstentions would only lead to paralysed government or endless elections. Undermining the idea of a mandate, even from a minority position, would mean weaker governments. In addition, one might see much more fracturing of parties into small interest groups in an attempt to please at least someone.

Any thoughts? (of course, Gah! is a completely acceptable response). :2thumbsup:

Should ‘None of the Above’ (cf Gah!) be included on all ballot papers, and more importantly, tallied and given appropriate weight?

Yes , look at Thailand for an example of it working .

Considering that I am Gah, I would be very flattered if it was included in all ballot papers. Could be a bit tricky though if I'd get elected as leader over say Thailand, Chile and Iceland at the same time...

I'd much rather be able to vote none of the above then for someone I haven't researched enough and don't know enough about to make an informed desicion or if no canidate apeals to me then not having to vote for the lesser evil.

I think introducing Gah would be a good thing, I would even agree to forcing people to vote then, that way you could actually see what most people want instead of going for the least worst option.

Of course Gah should then be tallied up and if it outweighs the vote for a winner then the parties should be told to go away, sit in the corner and have a little think about where it all went wrong. :oops:

If you also added in that politicians had to live up to any promises made in the run up to elections I think it would make for a better, fairer system. Ah well, we can all wish, can't we? :no:

At the university where I was studying, on all ballets there was a phoney choice that basically called for new candidates. If it won more votes than the others, new elections had to be called.

Just imagine it in practice - we'd never get a government! Politicians are as a rule liars, and the ones that aren't have to deal with so much of the furniture of the last administrations e.g. the Civil Service that change is almost impossible.

You want to reduce the civil service numbers. Who can you ask to do this apart from the self same civil service.

Far better rule with 30% turn out, than find that when one gets 70%, the other 40% didn't want any of 'em.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

At the university where I was studying, on all ballets there was a phoney choice that basically called for new candidates. If it won more votes than the others, new elections had to be called.

---

An excellent idea. Let's campaign to get this included in all elections.

The good thing abuot a GAH option is that it says: "It is not that I can't be bothered to vote, but I don't want to vote for any of these." If you stay at home, it looks apathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Considering that I am Gah, I would be very flattered if it was included in all ballot papers. Could be a bit tricky though if I'd get elected as leader over say Thailand, Chile and Iceland at the same time...

---

How did you become Gah? :inquisitive:

I can see the beginnings of the Gah! Party. :yes:

Vote for who is on the ballot or don’t vote. If you want a different candidate write one in, encourage someone you approve of to run or run yourself. Voting to not vote for anyone is lame IMO.

We call it the Sleepers' Party around here. The real vote magnets tend to be Donald Duck and Darth Vader, I hear.

"Is there a role for Gah! in politics?" Well, sure. It's just usually called "apathy", and considered to be something that should actually be avoided... ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

How did you become Gah? :inquisitive:

---

User options :2thumbsup: , but it's still only in my custom user title. Maybe I should ask for a user name change as well? :idea2: If I change my IRL name to Gah I would probably also be the first to be named Gah... To put it simply - you become Gah when you feel you are Gah. Everybody can become Gah! It comes from the inside. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Vote for who is on the ballot or don’t vote. If you want a different candidate write one in, encourage someone you approve of to run or run yourself. Voting to not vote for anyone is lame IMO.

---

In theory I would agree, and personally I vote every time!

But I think it is fair to let people say "how come we have such a lousy selection?"

Imagine if 55% of the voters voted for that... I will bet you that the politicans would wake up (Thailand)..

Voting to not vote for anyone is lame IMO
Why ? look at Thailand , voting is compulsory , the opposition boycotted the election , since you have to vote then if you were not given the option of no candidate then you would have to vote for a candidate that you didn't want .
The no candidate vote won by a landslide . Gah in action .:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Voting to not vote for anyone is lame IMO
Why ? look at Thailand , voting is compulsory , the opposition boycotted the election , since you have to vote then if you were not given the option of no candidate then you would have to vote for a candidate that you didn't want .
The no candidate vote won by a landslide . Gah in action .:2thumbsup:

---

He does have a point. Voting GAH in the UK is saying I am not too apathetic to vote, but I am too apathetic to join or start a political party to make sure that there is someone worth voting for and that is a bit lame, although it would be more lame to not vote at all. However in countries like Thialand or Australia where voting is compulsory a "none of the above" option is only fair.

The situation in Thailand is a bit different then here in the states but when it is time to vote it is hardly the time to say "how come we have such a lousy selection?" :bow:

If you didn’t help cook diner you shouldn’t bitch about what’s being served. ~D

So if Gah does win the election what happens then is there another election or what happens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Csar

So if Gah does win the election what happens then is there another election or what happens?

---

Proletariat to power!:idea2:

New vote? without Gah!? option?

I think Gah! should be an option, I bet it will be the biggest party in alot of countries tough. But really if someone feels that he has no right or knowledge to judge about something why should he choose one of the options? Tough the people who think they have the most knowledge or right to judge about something usually are the ones that, in my eyes, are mostly ignorant and stupid.

You've to see your own congress sessions sometime. There's a lot of "Gah!" there, it's just that the expresion comes with another content, but it means "Gah!".:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Voting GAH in the UK is saying I am not too apathetic to vote, but I am too apathetic to join or start a political party to make sure that there is someone worth voting for and that is a bit lame, although it would be more lame to not vote at all.

---

Maybe it is different in the UK, but here in the US it is nearly impossible to start a viable third party. Most of the new parties around here are one-issue parties without the sort of broad/unique platform that has a chanc for broad support.

For example here in Vermont we have the Marijuana party, guess what their only real platform issue is? Yep, legalizing pot. Do they have any real chance of winning anything but tiny town elections, no.

It'd be great if we had more choice around here, but it is so hard to do that not starting your own party and being dissappointed with the choices come election time is not lame.

When voter turn out is below 50% (or below 100% to be idealistic), maybe it would be wise to add a "this whole system is bull" option to the ballot to see what amount of the problem of low voter turn out is apathy and how much is disgust.

Maybe an option instead of Gah would be to have any election with a turn out of less than say 70% to be declared null and void. Not everyone chooses not to vote from apathy, a lot of people just think that the available selection is terrible, I mean, look at the UK, have you ever seen such a bunch of snakes that want to tell you how to run your life?

But people are right, if you have the Gah option then you should enforce voting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Maybe it is different in the UK, but here in the US it is nearly impossible to start a viable third party. Most of the new parties around here are one-issue parties without the sort of broad/unique platform that has a chanc for broad support.

---

Pretty similar here, but you could join an existing party and exercise control over who they pick. In any case, GAH is hardly a viable option, so would it not be better to start a non-viable but acceptable-to-you party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Pretty similar here, but you could join an existing party and exercise control over who they pick. In any case, GAH is hardly a viable option, so would it not be better to start a non-viable but acceptable-to-you party?

---

The problem is that parties are pretty set in their ways. The leaders (not THE leader) of the parties have enough power of persuasion to make sure that those that THEY do not like do not get in.

To be effective in this matter would mean that you have to be organized even before you entered the party... And that sort of defeats the purpose of getting in there as you could just start your own party, and then we are back to the same problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Pretty similar here, but you could join an existing party and exercise control over who they pick. In any case, GAH is hardly a viable option, so would it not be better to start a non-viable but acceptable-to-you party?

---

If you don't mind only winning meanignless town elections...

And working within the parties doesn't work very well because they are pretty much out to get the votes, and unless a lot of people think the same way you do you won't get them to change their policies. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if we had a few more parties over here....

First off, defining the term "Gah". For me (atleast) it was a greeting created by a warrior in STW called Krast. He confided that it meant "wtf I got nothing better to do", and why is that (gah)? Gah! It is a euphanism (sp) for "my god, I got nothing better to do than deal with nerds I don't know, in a game I hate".

Now, suddenly it is being used to explain political positions - no doubt Krast is proud. Imagine, using a word as an insult (or endearment to those that know you) now being used as a cause all or definition. Politically? Must be time for Krast to crawl back into his coffin .... creeeeeeeeaak. It was Krast, Gah was a greeting. Nothing more.

Nerds.

Quote:

---

The problem is that parties are pretty set in their ways. The leaders (not THE leader) of the parties have enough power of persuasion to make sure that those that THEY do not like do not get in.

To be effective in this matter would mean that you have to be organized even before you entered the party... And that sort of defeats the purpose of getting in there as you could just start your own party, and then we are back to the same problem.

---

This is only true because we allow it to be so. If all the people who thought that the current choices were unacceptable either joined a party or starte their own party then things would change.

Quote:

---

If you don't mind only winning meanignless town elections...

---

In the UK two independent MP's have been returned in recent(ish) elections.

Quote:

---

And working within the parties doesn't work very well because they are pretty much out to get the votes, and unless a lot of people think the same way you do you won't get them to change their policies. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if we had a few more parties over here....
Today 01:41

---

I don't think you can criticise political parties for trying to attract votes, or complain that you can't get your ideas adopted because only a few people would support them. That's democracy. However if you don't get involved, you should not moan about the paucity of choices, or at least if you do, your behaviour is lame. (I admit it. I am lame too.)

Quote:

---

First off, defining the term "Gah". For me (atleast) it was a greeting created by a warrior in STW called Krast. He confided that it meant "wtf I got nothing better to do", and why is that (gah)? Gah! It is a euphanism (sp) for "my god, I got nothing better to do than deal with nerds I don't know, in a game I hate".

Now, suddenly it is being used to explain political positions - no doubt Krast is proud. Imagine, using a word as an insult (or endearment to those that know you) now being used as a cause all or definition. Politically? Must be time for Krast to crawl back into his coffin .... creeeeeeeeaak. It was Krast, Gah was a greeting. Nothing more.

Nerds.

---

Words' meaningd develop. Gah was a greeting. Its meaning has now developed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

First off, defining the term "Gah". For me (atleast) it was a greeting created by a warrior in STW called Krast. He confided that it meant "wtf I got nothing better to do", and why is that (gah)? Gah! It is a euphanism (sp) for "my god, I got nothing better to do than deal with nerds I don't know, in a game I hate".

---

Perhaps you would do well to read the post starting the thread. I was using the tradition of including Gah! as an option in our hobbyist Backroom polls as a macguffin for debating the counting of abstentions in democratic polls affecting government.

In the earlier thread which provoked my thoughts, Pindar was making some passionate points about why inanity was detrimental to the political process and others claiming the right of inanity, or that being disenfranchised from the choices available, the right to register protest. In other words, the right to have abstention counted.

I believe this was a perfectly legitimate tangent to pursue, and apparently so do others.

:smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

First off, defining the term "Gah". For me (atleast) it was a greeting created by a warrior in STW called Krast. He confided that it meant "wtf I got nothing better to do", and why is that (gah)? Gah! It is a euphanism (sp) for "my god, I got nothing better to do than deal with nerds I don't know, in a game I hate".


Now, suddenly it is being used to explain political positions - no doubt Krast is proud. Imagine, using a word as an insult (or endearment to those that know you) now being used as a cause all or definition. Politically? Must be time for Krast to crawl back into his coffin .... creeeeeeeeaak. It was Krast, Gah was a greeting. Nothing more.

Nerds.

---

'Gah' wasn`t created by an STW player. It has existed all along.
Gah is rather an expression of light frustration, indifference or wondering.

'Gah' is backwards for 'hag', which is what you all are!!!!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

First off, defining the term "Gah".... blah blah .... political positions - no doubt Krast is proud.... blah blah ... Must be time for Krast to crawl back into his coffin .... creeeeeeeeaak. It was Krast, Gah was a greeting. Nothing more.

Nerds.

---

*opens coffin*

*creeps out of coffin*

Gah!

Political power comes out of the barrel of an axe!

Gah!

*creeps back into coffin*

*closes coffin*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

'Gah' wasn`t created by an STW player. It has existed all along.
Gah is rather an expression of light frustration, indifference or wondering.

---

... or, not.

You can find other, earlier references to 'Gah!' if you:

... read all five books of the Lord of the Rings very closely; or

... watch Star Wars episode IV with the subtitles on; or

... gaze long into your navel until you realize the Secret Truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krasturak

gaze long into your navel until you realize the Secret Truth.

---

I`ll stick to that, the rest was too complicated. :sweatdrop: