In the USSR, there were elections in which there was only one candidate.Rate can be either "for" or "against".It was believed that if the votes "against" typed more than "for", the candidate will be removed, but instead will be different.But usually this is not done, the only candidate simply frowned almost automatically.Theoretically, this circuit was operating, even though it resulted in practice.Since then, the item was "against all".The reason for the decision to get rid of him it was said: "What sense to vote against all candidates abound when?".
But the essence of the situation is that the candidates can not be someone who would suit the voters.So, if it comes to the elections, it will not be able to vote as they see fit, since it is necess
ary to make a choice in favor of someone one of the candidates.But none of these voters do not like it!What does he do?Two options.Lubo did not come to the polls or spoil the ballot.Neither one nor the other is not a good way to express their position.
As an example of how the election system in which there is no option "against all", we can recall the election of the mayor of Moscow in 2013.For a candidate from the opposition Navalny voted about a little less than a third of voters.But when you consider that all the elections was no more than one third of the inhabitants of Moscow, it turns out that the candidate has approved about tenth.The picture changes completely when one considers turnout.
problem with the "against all" in Russia is that many representatives of the authorities themselves understand that people are very dissatisfied with some of the political and economic phenomena, so if the item back, then vote against allIt will gain a lot.Some politicians even say that it is necessary to return the "against all" as this item will win all elections.Of course, you can not be sure of this result, but the presence of "against all" at least promises to increase voter turnout, which is also very important.
Another consequence of the abolition of "against all" is that people who would vote against all, started to give voice quite marginal candidates who never would have received the approval of the audience otherwise.People vote for them, just to make their voice is not got to the central party.It turns out that dubious candidates receive an extra chance, but it's not too good.
Various Statistics Center conducted surveys of the population in which it appears that most people are happy, if we return the column "against all", as it is associated with the ability to express themselves freely.This does not mean that all will rush to choose this graph.Against all voted no more than 14% of voters, the data published by VTsIOM.