Write-in Candidates in other Countries

JoeMorgue

Self Employed , Remittance Man
JoeMorgue
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
48,325
Location
Florida
Are "Write-In" candidates a thing on ballots in your country and if so how are they implemented?

Here in AssaultRifleEagleLand on every vote for a position (not a referendum but every vote where you are voting for a person) no matter if it is one or twenty people listed on the ballot you have a space to "Write In" anyone of you choosing.

A couple of people on my Facebook feed from other countries seem shocked by this.

So how does this work in other countries? How do you vote for someone not on the ballot? Can you just... not vote for someone not on the ballot?
 
That's just so weird to me. So you have like an... approved ballot and that's all the people you are (functionally) allowed to vote for?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Are "Write-In" candidates a thing on ballots in your country and if so how are they implemented?

Here in AssaultRifleEagleLand on every vote for a position (not a referendum but every vote where you are voting for a person) no matter if it is one or twenty people listed on the ballot you have a space to "Write In" anyone of you choosing.

A couple of people on my Facebook feed from other countries seem shocked by this.

So how does this work in other countries? How do you vote for someone not on the ballot? Can you just... not vote for someone not on the ballot?
Click to expand...

In Norway, we vote for parties, not persons. But in certain elections it's possible to write in candidates from other parties' lists. This is in fact done a lot.
 
fagin said:
If you write anything on a ballot here (UK) it's considered spoilt.

Can't see any point really - what does it achieve over there?
Click to expand...

Not really true. You can write pretty much anything you want as long as your voting intention is clear. A spoilt ballot is really just one that they can't count - usually because your intention isn't clear.

The one thing you definitely can't write is anything that would identify you - so names are largely off the table.
 
How does it work in practice? Do you get a final tally of any write in candidates? What seems strange to me is how you can tell who is being voted for. Say a 1000 people write in a vote for “John Smith” to be the dog catcher, and there 12 people in the town called John Smith, who was voted in?
 
Darat said:
How does it work in practice? Do you get a final tally of any write in candidates? What seems strange to me is how you can tell who is being voted for. Say a 1000 people write in a vote for “John Smith” to be the dog catcher, and there 12 people in the town called John Smith, who was voted in?
Click to expand...

The one who was actively campaigning for it. Almost all write in candiates actively campaign for it.

Last really sucessfuly major office write in was back in 2010 when Barbara Murkowski won the Alaska Senate seat as a write in candidate.
 
Hevneren said:
In Norway, we vote for parties, not persons. But in certain elections it's possible to write in candidates from other parties' lists. This is in fact done a lot.
Click to expand...

That will never be done in the USA. We like splitting our ticket too much.
 
fagin said:
If you write anything on a ballot here (UK) it's considered spoilt.

Can't see any point really - what does it achieve over there?
Click to expand...

In 2010 it got Barbara Mukowski elected the Senator from Alaska. That is sort of a big deal.
 
An American friend of mine once wrote in my name on his ballot paper for the position of "High Sherrif", whatever that is.

I didn't win. :(
 
There are no "write-in" candidates in Australian elections. The only people you can vote for are the people who have gone through the process of standing for election. It costs money to get on the ballot, and you can't do it unless you can demonstrate sufficient support for your candidacy.

I was utterly astounded when I learned that it is normal in America to vote for random people without their knowledge or permission.
 
arthwollipot said:
There are no "write-in" candidates in Australian elections. The only people you can vote for are the people who have gone through the process of standing for election. It costs money to get on the ballot, and you can't do it unless you can demonstrate sufficient support for your candidacy.

I was utterly astounded when I learned that it is normal in America to vote for random people without their knowledge or permission.
Click to expand...

It's not.
Almost all successful write in candidates are organized.
Of course you are going to have the occasional protest write in. "Mickey Mouse" is quite popular as a protest write in.
 
dudalb said:
It's not.
Almost all successful write in candidates are organized.
Click to expand...
But not organised enough to actually get themselves on the ballot, apparently.

dudalb said:
Of course you are going to have the occasional protest write in. "Mickey Mouse" is quite popular as a protest write in.
Click to expand...
That would be considered an informal vote here and be discarded. What happens to it in the US?
 
dudalb said:
The one who was actively campaigning for it. Almost all write in candiates actively campaign for it.

Last really sucessfuly major office write in was back in 2010 when Barbara Murkowski won the Alaska Senate seat as a write in candidate.
Click to expand...

And if 2 John Smiths campaigned? Or a John Smith claims “I was campaigning you just didn’t notice my campaign, ask my mum she’ll tell you I was campaigning “.
 
catsmate said:
Yes. "Write-in" candidates are a weird USAian thing.
Click to expand...


Meh.

It gives voters a false illusion of 'choice'. Meanwhile, the reality is there are only two or three 'choices'. But being able to write-in "Mickey Mouse" somehow comforts them into thinking they've got more freedumb to choose from.

The magic of illusion.

It's a way to keep the masses calm and happy and less likely to form a rebellion against the establishment.

So long as the plebeians are fed their bread and circuses, all is well in the land of Nod.
 
Here we have a black square with a white circle in it in front of each candidate.
You have to fill in one circle with the red pencil provided.

Filling in more than one circle or getting the red pencil marks outside of the black square invalidates the vote. As does writing on the paper or other things like that.

If you do make a mistake, you can give the paper back to the voting commision, who destroys it and gives you a new one. You are allowed to do this only once though.
 
I have never voted here I Japan but apparently all ballots (or almost all) are purely write in.

That is, you go to the polling station and get a piece of paper that says “candidate’s name” and then you write the name of he candidate in the box. This is apparently why electoral vans drive around with the candidates saying “i’m Tanaka, vote for me! I’m Tanaka, vote for me!” and almost never talk about policies (unless they are the Communist Party who often have very identifiable policies), because name recognition is important for the old ladies who get in the voting booth and then can only remember “Tanaka” - a name with a very easy kanji. Candidates who have names with difficult kanji will often have their names written in hiragana on their electoral posters to make it easier to vote for them. As far as I know, you cannot simply write any old person’s name on the ballot though otherwise it would be nightmare figuring out which Tanaka got which vote.

In the last election a few American co-workers got their ballots posted to them and filled out their voting forms in the office. I asked them all to write my name in (voter intimidation?) but they all refused, even the communist guy who said here was no way he would vote for Hillary! (He might even have voted for Trump actually on the basis that the worse the better and with the hope of accelerating late-stage capitalism to its end and ushering in the revolution).
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
If they're actively campaigning, why are they not on the ballot?
Click to expand...


Because they did not qualify ie, did not get enough signatures.
Sometimes it's a case where a write in candidate runs because the official party nominee is divisive within his own party, and usually the final electins ballots are :locked" within a couple of weeks of the primary elections, not enough time to get the signature for the ballot.
That is what happened with Senator Murkowski in Alaska; a very divisive candidate won the primary defeating Murkowski by a very narrow margin,and Murkowski staged a write in campaign;there was no way she could get on the ballot which was locked after the prmary vote. This has been the only time in recent history a write in campaign was successful for a really major office.
Very few write ins are successful;it more a form of protest then anything else.
And what is the problem with giving people more of a choice?
 
dudalb said:
Because they did not qualify ie, did not get enough signatures.
Sometimes it's a case where a write in candidate runs because the official party nominee is divisive within his own party, and usually the final electins ballots are :locked" within a couple of weeks of the primary elections, not enough time to get the signature for the ballot.
That is what happened with Senator Murkowski in Alaska; a very divisive candidate won the primary defeating Murkowski by a very narrow margin,and Murkowski staged a write in campaign;there was no way she could get on the ballot which was locked after the prmary vote. This has been the only time in recent history a write in campaign was successful for a really major office.
Very few write ins are successful;it more a form of protest then anything else.
And what is the problem with giving people more of a choice?
Click to expand...

It also could make sense when you have entryist groups. Lyndon Larouche used to get his candidates on Democratic primary ballots because sometimes you only needed a fairly small number of people to turn up at a townhall to grab a nomination that other members of the party assumed was a dead rubber. Presumably open primaries could lead to a lot of members of opposition parties turning up to vote for the most laughable candidate, "huh huh, let's vote Donald Trump, then the Democrats are sure to win with anyone they put up! Ha ha!"

In the UK, the Labour Party has also had its fair share of entryist candidates from radical leftist organizations.
 
The smaller the scale of the election the more likely it is to work. For party positions rather than government office, the precinct captains for both major parties often don't have anyone running for the position.

My father once noticed that the local Democratic party precinct captain had nobody running. He knew this only because he was doing an absentee ballot that year. He wrote himself in. He talked to a few friends and they wrote him in on election day and he won. My sister did the same thing for the exact same position a few years later.
 
Hevneren said:
In Norway, we vote for parties, not persons. But in certain elections it's possible to write in candidates from other parties' lists. This is in fact done a lot.
Click to expand...

To expand on this...

On the ballots of each party is a list of that party's prefered candidates in order, as decided by the members of the party. If a party gets enough votes to get in three people, the first three on the list are the ones getting in.

That is, if no one crossed out or added any names, or rearranged the order of the list. Because you can do that.

This has a great impact on elections, and it's not uncommon for people far down on a party's list to get elected because they got lots of personal votes.
 
dudalb said:
Because they did not qualify ie, did not get enough signatures.
Sometimes it's a case where a write in candidate runs because the official party nominee is divisive within his own party, and usually the final electins ballots are :locked" within a couple of weeks of the primary elections, not enough time to get the signature for the ballot.
That is what happened with Senator Murkowski in Alaska; a very divisive candidate won the primary defeating Murkowski by a very narrow margin,and Murkowski staged a write in campaign;there was no way she could get on the ballot which was locked after the prmary vote. This has been the only time in recent history a write in campaign was successful for a really major office.
Very few write ins are successful;it more a form of protest then anything else.
And what is the problem with giving people more of a choice?
Click to expand...
I mentioned a few problems that I could see above, I do wonder how those are addressed?
 
Darat said:
I mentioned a few problems that I could see above, I do wonder how those are addressed?
Click to expand...

I have not seen any of those problams arise from a write in election, so there must be some way of handling them. I suspect "common sense" on the part of election officials plays a big role;if only one John SMith is out campaings for an office, he must be the one voters are writing in.
 
In Australia, if you write anything (other than marking boxes with numbers) on the ballot paper, the vote is discarded.

This is to prevent schemes where people are paid for their vote.
 
novaphile said:
In Australia, if you write anything (other than marking boxes with numbers) on the ballot paper, the vote is discarded.

This is to prevent schemes where people are paid for their vote.
Click to expand...

Could you expand on this please? I don't really see how this prevents vote selling.
 
novaphile said:
In Australia, if you write anything (other than marking boxes with numbers) on the ballot paper, the vote is discarded.

This is to prevent schemes where people are paid for their vote.
Click to expand...

Pope130 said:
Could you expand on this please? I don't really see how this prevents vote selling.
Click to expand...

The link below gives a complete list of ways to vote informal in Australia. As long as the voter puts the sequence 1,2,3... in the boxes it will be a formal vote. There is no mention of writing outside of the boxes. About the only exception is Category H: Voter identified.


https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/research/paper12/appendix-b.htm
 
JoeMorgue said:
Are "Write-In" candidates a thing on ballots in your country and if so how are they implemented?

Here in AssaultRifleEagleLand on every vote for a position (not a referendum but every vote where you are voting for a person) no matter if it is one or twenty people listed on the ballot you have a space to "Write In" anyone of you choosing.

A couple of people on my Facebook feed from other countries seem shocked by this.

So how does this work in other countries? How do you vote for someone not on the ballot? Can you just... not vote for someone not on the ballot?
Click to expand...

In the UK, Parliamentary/Assembly candidates (i.e. UK, Scottish, Wales, or NI) or their parties must stump up a certain amount of money as a deposit to actually be on the ballot paper, currently £500. If they get more than 5% of the vote, they get the money back, but if not, they lose it. Saying that a candidate "lost their deposit" is a very common way of saying that they got a derisory number of votes. The purpose of this is to ensure that only "serious" candidates are in the running, and having the equivalent of "write-in" on the ballot paper would undermine that.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Because they did not qualify ie, did not get enough signatures.
Click to expand...
Then how do they expect to get enough votes to win?

dudalb said:
Sometimes it's a case where a write in candidate runs because the official party nominee is divisive within his own party, and usually the final electins ballots are :locked" within a couple of weeks of the primary elections, not enough time to get the signature for the ballot.
Click to expand...
I keep forgetting that you have only two parties, and independents. If that happened in Australia, the other candidate would probably just start their own party.

dudalb said:
That is what happened with Senator Murkowski in Alaska; a very divisive candidate won the primary defeating Murkowski by a very narrow margin,and Murkowski staged a write in campaign;there was no way she could get on the ballot which was locked after the prmary vote. This has been the only time in recent history a write in campaign was successful for a really major office.
Click to expand...
Again, I am forgetting the American system where you have to vote for who you get to vote for before you actually get to vote for them.

dudalb said:
Very few write ins are successful;it more a form of protest then anything else.
And what is the problem with giving people more of a choice?
Click to expand...
It dilutes the results, making them closer and more ambiguous and less clear.
 
Pope130 said:
Could you expand on this please? I don't really see how this prevents vote selling.
Click to expand...

It's the same in Israel. Any form of marking on a ballot disqualifies it.

As I understand it, the reason are to prevent voter intimidation.

Let's say the person running the poles walks up to you and threaten you -
"I can see from your form exactly who you are and where you live. If you don't put a smiley face on your ballot so I'll know it's yours I'll do something bad to you"

Or anything of that sort. I suppose the same goes for selling your vote.
You'd put some sort of identifying mark on the ballot so the person doing the counting will know that particular vote was from you.






For the record, we do have an option of a write in, but it has to be a given party name that is officially running. The reason for that is that let's say you want to vote for party X. The ballots for them were all taken and they run out.

They don't want you telling the people at the poll "Oh, those ballots have run out. Can I get some more?"
Essentially telling them what you're going to vote for.

So we have these empty ballots you can manually write on.

But it can't be "anything". It has to be an existing option.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Can you just... not vote for someone not on the ballot?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. The race is closed with a finite number of options you can pick from.




I think the arthwollipot nailed it. The reason Americans do it is because of the 2 party system. Because it's impossible for any serious competition to either of those to arise, to at least have a shot you need a write in candidate.

For other countries who aren't completely in the hands of 2 particular parties, it's less of an issue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom