This essay answers a number of questions over the principle of nonvoting and its use in legislature. An example would be the answer to the following questions- Is the problem clearly defined? ANSWER- This is perhaps the one area where the report does seem a bit weak. By implication, the report condemns nonvoting and the results that it causes. It clearly states that nonvoting is always construed as a “no” vote whether that is the actual intention or not. However, by a simple progression of logic one may deem that if the intended result of a legislative member is to cast a “no” vote, then nonvoting is in reality a non-issue. One can certainly see that if a “yes” vote were intended to be cast, then that is precisely what would happen. The report offers various political reasons and results of nonvoting, but what it fails to clearly state is that nonvoting is a problem because of not understanding the true feelings of the politician committing this act of nonvoting. However, the report clearly states that nonvoting is always a “no” vote. By implication, one may assume that the politician committing the non-vote would also vote “no” at the poles for the same political reasons. One could say that apathy is the problem, but the report fails to show this either.
