日期：2025年 6月 25日
作者：安瑞希 Avery Adams
今天我見到了一位很重要的人物──張天鷞（Sam），他是一位致力於推動選舉改革的活動家。我與他進行了一次簡短的會議。他創立了一個名為 Balanced Ballot Alliance 的非政府組織（NGO），網址是：https://www.balancedballotalliance.org。
他的理念非常清晰且具有說服力：在選舉中，公民應該擁有明確表達“反對”候選人的選項。這個想法看似簡單，但目前世界上幾乎所有國家都未提供這種選擇。
他的理由也很容易理解。現在有許多人會投票給他們並不真正支持的選項，只因為沒有更好的選擇；也有些人因為對所有選項都不滿意，乾脆選擇不去投票。如果有機會投下“不是”的選票，也許就會有更多人願意參與投票。
這不只是理論上的想法。Sam 已經進行過多次調查，結果一致顯示：如果讓選民可以針對每個選項投下“是”或“不是”的票，投票率會提高約 7%，而且最終結果也會發生變化。例如：在一個模擬中，原本選項 A 得到 40% 的支持，B 得到 37%。引入“不是”選項後，A 得到 38% 的“是”票，但同時也有 8% 的“不是”票，淨支持為30%；而 B 得到 35% 的“是”票、4% 的“不是”票，淨支持為 31%。結果，B 反而勝出。雖然 A 的“是”票比較多，但因為也有更多人反對它，B 最終贏得選舉。這依然是民主制度，只是讓公民能更真實地表達自己的意見。
此外，這個制度也可以解決其他問題。例如，在一些國家或選區裡，某些選舉只有一個候選人，或是空缺的名額與候選人數一樣，讓人無法選擇。但如果能針對每位候選人投“是”或“不是”，那麼即使只有一人參選，公民也可以有選擇──至少可以表達反對，而不是被迫接受。
我認為這是一個非常有意義的提案，因為它不僅維持民主原則，更進一步賦予公民真正的選擇權。我相信，這樣的制度才是真正的民主。
Giving People the Choice to Vote "No"
Date: 25/6/25
Author: Avery Adams
Today I met with an important person – Sam Zhang, an activist who is committed to promoting electoral reform. I got to have a brief meeting with him today about his work. He founded a non-governmental organization (NGO) called the Balanced Ballot Alliance, which can be found in https://www.balancedballotalliance.org.
His idea is very clear and persuasive: in elections, citizens should have the option to clearly express their "opposition" to candidates. The idea may seem simple, but at the moment almost all countries in the world do not offer such an option.
His reasons are also easy to understand. Right now many people will vote for options that they don't really support, just because there is no better option; the "voting for the lesser of two evils" mentality. Others simply chose not to vote because they were not satisfied with all the options. If there is an opportunity to cast a "no" vote, perhaps more people will be willing to vote.
It's not just a theoretical idea. Sam has conducted several surveys and the results have consistently shown that if voters were allowed to cast a "yes" or "no" vote for each option, turnout would increase by about 7 percent, and the final outcome would change. For example, in a simulation, the original vote turnout was option A is 40% supported and B is 37%. With the introduction of the "no" option, A gets 38% of the "yes" votes, but at the same time has 8% of the "no" votes, for a net support of 30%. B received 35% of the "yes" votes and 4% of the "no" votes, for a net support of 31%. As a result, B won. Although A had more "yes" votes, B won the election because there were more people against A which preferred for A to not win at all. It's still a democracy, but it's just that citizens can express themselves more authentically.
In addition, this system can also solve other problems. For example, in some countries or constituencies, there is only one candidate in some elections, or there are the same number of vacancies as the number of candidates. This makes it so there isn't actually a choice when voting. But if you can vote "yes" or "no" for each candidate, then even if only one person is running, citizens will have a choice – at least to say against it, rather than being forced to accept it.
I think this is a very meaningful proposal, because it not only upholds democratic principles, but also goes a step further in giving citizens real choice. I believe that such a system is true democracy.
沒有留言:
張貼留言