It appears that this article doesn't fit someone's PhD thesis or idea of politics. The legitimate issue is that representative recall may be formal disapproval, but it may not be disapproval voting as such.
If it isn't, then, this is not an aspect of an electoral system but it is still a voting system. A serious problem with the current voting systems articles that it confuses an electoral and a voting system. That needs fixing.
A voting system is just a way to make a collective choice. Clearly there is such a thing as disapproval voting in this sense, since there are reality game shows out there doing it literally every day on TV. So this exists.
It's dodgier whether the kind of protest vote or abstention or refusal to ratify constitutes disapproval voting without a disapproval style of ballot. That issue can be discussed and disputed without censoring the voting system itself.
moved from W:vfud'
- disapproval voting clearly exists, as anyone who's seen "Survivor" knows - the article had five links to it that all seemed valid, so it has been temporarily restored so it can be reviewed by more neutral parties. It seems to have become a target of User:DanKeshet because it doesn't fit his thesis that choosing a voting system is like choosing a social welfare function, and because it is not used for elections, but in reality game shows. A new short article on formal disapproval was also added. The deletion of both of these seems to have been wholly politically motivated, or because they don't fit an idiosyncratic thesis. Also list of voting systems is a mess, and should not be used as a watchlist. All told, this is quite bad management of pages.
- Careful ascribing motivations. The meta:deletion management redesign is to deal with the serious notification problems that exist in the present system. Avoid restoring articles that have not been approved here, although, in this case I agree there's a valid article there, although some of it's content may go somewhere else. User:DanKeshet has done an otherwise good job of the voting systems pages, and very often such people do so due to some motivation such as you ascribe, but, if the process is followed, it's hardly only his fault. EofT
"more than two" vs. "two or more"
In the sentence "[t]rue disapproval voting would require more than two choices or representatives, and would ask voters to disavow one or more," wouldn't it make more sense to say "two or more"?
Of course, in a recall vote there are typically two choices: recall and don't recall. But surely a vote to recall one of two people still counts as proper disapproval voting? That is to say, surely it is not necessary to have three choices for it to be a true disapproval vote?
--cpcallen 16:35, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
Adding non-confidence voting here?
George Hara 23:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would like to add a section here for non-confidence voting. Here is the text (any objections?):
A particular case of the disproval voting is the non-confidence voting.
The non-confidence voting is normally used after an "in favor" qualified majority vote, 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 (which can be toward the representatives or 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. Today, this happens only on a small scale: parliament - president - government.
The premise on which the non-confidence voting is based is that it is better to have no rules than have any bad rules, at least until a new attempt to impose the rule.
Non-confidence voting is a call for non-action, that is, it can be applied only when there is no necessity for an outcome of the voting process (meaning, things can be just as they were before the vote – without the rule). Therefore, it can't be applied when it is necessary to take action, like choosing a candidate in elections.
One more thing... I don't understand this paragraph from "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'm not 100% on what disapproval voting is after reading the article. Here is the type of system I am thinking of in my head:
There are 5 candidates on the ballot: Bob, Tim, Joe, Steve, and Ellen. Voter is told to vote against as many candidates as desired. The votes are then counted, with the following results: Bob has 10 votes against him, Tim has 12 votes against him, Joe has 23 votes against him, Steve has 19 votes against him, and Ellen has 7 votes against her. The result is Ellen, who has the least votes against her, wins the election.
Is that disapproval voting? Or is that something else? Doregasm 08:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Approval Voting ("Give yes to ones you want, the one with most yes, wins the election") is different from disapproval voting ("Give no to ones you dont want, the one with least no, wins the election").
- On disaproval voting, not giving a vote to someone because you are lazy to check the entire ballot or because you didnt saw someone there and etc... means you want them. You must make sure you vote on every single person you dont want or you will be actually "wanting them".22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
"Against all" voting in Russia
"This negative view of politics itself is very commonly associated with libertarianism."
This seems like a POV assertion. If this statement is meant to convey something NPOV, I think it needs careful revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that's a serious problem, since libertarians are generally negative about government/politics but this sentence implying seeing things the way the writer thinks is some sort of "failure" is both POV and not very clear "some fail to see voting as a positive and voluntary choice of a desirable outcome. To these, the electoral and legal systems are in general about reducing the losses, not pursuing the possible gains, in political cooperation with each other." 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)