The column "Against all" existed in the ballots until 2006, and then it was decided to remove it. At present, there is talk about returning this item so that those who are not satisfied with any of the candidates who speak can express their opinion.
Instruction manual
1
There were elections in the USSR where only one candidate was present. You could vote either for or against. It was believed that if there are more “against” votes than “for”, then the candidate will be removed, and another will appear instead. But this was usually not done, the only candidate was simply approved almost automatically. Theoretically, this scheme was working, despite the fact that it resulted in practice. Since then, the item "Against All" has remained. As a reason for the decision to get rid of him, it was said: "What is the point of voting against everyone when there are plenty of candidates?"
2
But the essence of the situation is that among the candidates there may not be someone who would suit the voter. It turns out that if he comes to the polls, he will not be able to vote as he sees fit, as it is imperative to make a choice in favor of one of the candidates. And none of them do not like the voter! What is left for him? Two options. Love not to appear at the polls, or to spoil the ballot. Neither one is a good way to express your position.
3
As an example of how the election system works, in which there is no “Against All” option, we can recall the 2013 mayoral election in Moscow. About a third of the voters voted for the opposition candidate Navalny. But taking into account that no more than a third of Moscow residents came to the polls, it turns out that about a tenth of the candidates approved. The picture is completely changing, given the turnout of voters.
4
The problem with the column “Against all” in Russia is that many representatives of the authorities themselves understand that the population is very dissatisfied with certain political and economic phenomena, so if this item is returned, then there will be a lot of votes against all. Some politicians even say that it is worth returning “Against All”, as this item will win all elections. Of course, one cannot be sure of such a result, but the presence of “Against All” at least promises an increase in the turnout, which is also very important.
5
Another consequence of the cancellation of “Against All” is that people who would vote against all began to vote for completely marginal candidates who would never have received the approval of the audience otherwise. People vote for them, just so that their voice does not go to the central party. It turns out that dubious candidates get an additional chance, but this is not too good.
6
Various statistical centers conduct population surveys, during which it turns out that most people are happy if they return the column "Against all", as it is associated with the ability to freely express their opinion. This does not mean that everyone will rush to choose this particular column. No more than 14% of voters voted against all, VTsIOM publishes such data.
