Why should I vote for you? Hmm? Well I won't then.

About twenty five years ago a movie came out named Brewster's Millions that was based on a 1902 novel by George Barr McCutcheon. The hero, played by Richard Pryor, has to spend $30m in 30 days in order to inherit a $300m fortune. This condition is imposed by the miserly testator in a similar vein to a parent forcing a child who is caught smoking to smoke a whole pack as a means of deterrent for future smoking. Part of the plot is that the title character spends most of the money by entering the New York mayoral election under the ticket Vote None of the Above. It is a colossal waste of money and on his way to frittering away the money he succeeds in convincing the electorate that the standing candidates aren't worthy of their votes. This has made me start thinking recently...

Taito Phillip Field: expelled from the Labour Party and
jailed for corruption. Voted in by the good people of
Mangere. Would you buy a used car off this man?

In the wake of the Aaron Gilmore, Brendan Horan and David Garrett fiascos, media commentators have responded by pointing out that there is a paucity of ideal candidates on the lower ends of the party lists. Cynics would also mention that there seems to be a paucity of suitable candidates at the upper reaches of the lists as well. I move on by saying that we have an incumbent government that has passed, and is considering passing legislation that even its own voters aren't quite sure that they like. How can the current government ride roughshod over the opinions of detractors of the GCSB Bill when they include safeguarding interest groups such as the Law Society? The opposition is not strong enough to defeat the bill and there are significant questions surrounding the efficacy of the opposition in everyday parliament at all. We are being shown that accountable government needs strong opposition to keep it honest, but the harsh glare of the opposition spotlight seems to be falling on the leadership of the Green Party which is the third largest party in parliament, rather than on the leadership of Labour, the second largest. The question has to be asked, are Labour voters getting what they wanted from their leadership? Are National voters happy with the current crop of policies? How about the good voters of the Maori Party? Are they happy that their team has had their own internal squabbles and performed so poorly in the recent Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election? Are ACT voters happy that their leader actually wants to be a National MP again? Are Green voters... actually, I would imagine Green voters would be fairly happy with the way things are going for their party but I won't pose a question for every party, mainly because I cannot cover every single category of woe that betides, every renegade MP, every gaffe and each faceplam.

Frequently, the only option for voters who are not happy with their usual preferred party is to vote for someone else or cast a protest vote for some lunatic who is standing for a seat dressed as a carrot. 
My question is why vote at all?

A recent graphic from the New Yorker depicting impressions
from Republican voters on their party. It could easily apply
to many political parties here in New Zealand.

The conventional position of voting for someone else aligns the voter with a fresh set of policies that they may not agree with and so this option could be considered to be less than ideal. By willingly not casting a vote because the usual preferred candidate or party isn't good enough or because their policies aren't ideal an elector is making a statement: I thought about voting for you, but you're no better than everyone else. So what affect will this have? Okay, so X candidate loses one vote, but doesn't lose that vote to Y candidate. Their opponent won't gain that vote and so still may not get in, but their majority is reduced, sending a message that they need to lift their game. If there is one thing an MP pays attention to it is what their electorate majority is. This also applies to the party vote. A non-vote actually reduces a party's percentage of the electoral vote directly affecting its allocated proportion in parliament. The party vote is all about numbers and parties need votes, voter apathy is something the parties abhor. But this isn't voter apathy. This is active voter dissatisfaction. 

Brendan Horan: You may have voted
for NZ First and now it doesn't want
him. He's still in parliament.
Is your confidence in NZ First eroded?

There are a couple of adages that bandied around at election time: if you don't vote, don't complain; and don't vote, it only encourages the bastards. The first quotation can be successfully argued against - I didn't vote because I am complaining. I felt in my opinion that my position wasn't adequately represented and voting for someone else is sheer electoral recklessness. When I feel my vote is deserved by someone, I'll use it. The don't vote and don't complain adage only applies to those who are apathetic and foolishly waste their right to vote. Voting None of the Above is willful and considered and therefore not apathetic. Let's look at the second adage: don't vote, it only encourages the bastards. Well yes, it does but the active non-vote is a statement to encourage the bastards to be better MPs. MPs want your vote, they need your vote and in order to get that vote they have to be good performers, capable, intelligent, diplomatic and productive. Voters for ACT, NZ First and National should be unhappy that their party vote allowed David Garrett, Brendan Horan, Bob Clarkson, Richard Prosser and Aaron Gilmore into parliament. It's a veritable rogues gallery of stupid, useless bastards. The party voters have been badly let down by these clowns, so why not send a statement and say, I refuse to vote for you unless you provide list candidates who deserve voting for, not some shitkicker who falsely applies for a passport in the name of a dead baby; someone who is accused of hoovering dry his elderly mother's bank account; someone who repeatedly made coarse, sexist and racist jibes in parliament and in public; someone who... you get my point. Electors may also feel that other figures in politics have let them down such as the party leaders for varying reasons. 

Personally, I feel there are only a handful of MPs that are actually deserving of my vote across the whole political spectrum. As for a party vote, I am a bit bewildered as to who really deserves it and so I am uncommitted at present although I may be swayed. Vote None of the Above provides a third way beyond vote for X or vote for X's opponent Y. As a proponent of this movement I have to say it exists a little half-halfheartedly because it doesn't seek to completely discourage people from voting. What it does seek to do is to encourage people to use their votes a little more critically than just blindly following a party or candidate. People should step back and actually ask "Why should I vote for you, you useless bastard?". We want MPs who aren't going to embarrass themselves, their party and our parliament. We want MPs who will work hard, do what they say they are going to do and show some integrity. I would like to see more MPs step back from the party line and say "I'm a member of this party, but I don't actually agree with this. I won't vote for it."*

The thing about this movement is that it does not fall under any particular part of the left-right spectrum. From Mana through to ACT, we need to cast scrutiny over our representatives and not be so hasty to put them in a position of power. We only get one chance every three years to change things and we need to take our votes a little more seriously. I think we need to adapt our adages: don't vote and complain and don't vote to encourage the bastards. As a political force, Vote None of the Above will be a success if it takes a chunk out of voter turnout and can actively engage politicians to say why. Obviously because of the cross-spectrum nature of this movement, that interaction needs to take place on a individual basis, so what should you, the voter, do?
Email, write, ring or collar the candidates in person. Ask them, why should I vote for you? If you don't get a satisfactory answer, tell them why. If you get no answer at all, they weren't prepared to work for your vote anyway. This is an interesting form of electoral engagement that puts the onus of performance back on MPs and make them work a little bit harder to satisfy the public.
It is also going to be fun to watch.

*Votes in parliament are an interesting affair. Most votes on bills follow party lines but there is the occasional conscience vote. I would prefer to see all votes be conscience votes because it means that the MP actually has a position and stands for something rather than following the position of the Prime Minister. 
I am not likely to see this changed in my lifetime.