World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article


Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a voter casts a ballot willfully made invalid by marking it wrongly or by not marking anything at all. A "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although his vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstaining voter hasn't voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered to be a protest vote (also known as a "blank vote" or "white vote").

An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. Abstention can also be used when someone has a certain position about an issue, but since the popular sentiment supports the opposite, it might not be politically expedient to vote according to his or her conscience. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest.[1]

Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect attending only to contribute to a quorum. White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the legislation.


  • Active abstention 1
  • International and national procedures 2
  • Abstention campaigns 3
  • Justification 4
  • Criticisms 5
  • See also 6
  • References 7
  • External links 8

Active abstention

An active abstention can occur where a voter votes in a way that balances out their vote as if they had never voted. This has occurred many times in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. During a division (a process where a yes/no vote occurs to agree or disagree to a motion), a Member of Parliament may actively abstain by voting both "yes" and "no". This is effectively the same as not voting at all, as the outcome will not be changed by the active abstention.[2] However, in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, active abstention is not possible as a Lord voting both ways will be removed from the list of votes.[3]

In another manner, an intentionally spoilt vote could be interpreted as an active abstention. This is where a voter turns up to an election and invalidates the ballot paper in some way. Because of the nature of an abstention, only intentionally spoiled ballots could be counted as an active abstention.

International and national procedures

Comparative results of Canadian federal election with or without abstention

In the committees abstain on a measure, then the measure fails.

In the Council of the European Union, an abstention on a matter decided by unanimity has the effect of a yes vote; on matters decided by qualified majority it has an effect of a no vote.

In the United States House of Representatives and many other legislatures, members may vote "present" rather than for or against a bill or resolution, which has the effect of an abstention.

In the United States Senate, the Presiding Officer calls each Senator's name alphabetically, and, if abstaining, the Senator must give a reason for the abstention. Members may decline to vote, in committee or on the floor, on any matter which he or she believes would be a conflict of interest.[4]

Abstention campaigns

There have been a number of instances around the world where popular movements have boycotted elections.

In South Africa, there is a strong presence of abstention campaigns that make the structural argument that no political party truly represents the poor. The "No Land! No House! No Vote!" Campaign which was started by the Landless Peoples Movement in 2004, is the largest of such campaigns.[5][6] These campaigns have been met with significant repression.[7]

In 1999, a human rights activist was convicted in Belarus for calling not to participate in the local elections he considered to be undemocratic. In 2004 the United Nations Human Rights Committee found the conviction to violate freedom of expression.[8]

Other social movements and civil society organisations in other parts of the world also have similar campaigns or non-voting preferences. These include the Naxalites in India, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico and various anarchist and left communist oriented movements. In Mexico's mid term 2009 elections there was strong support for 'Nulo' - a campaign to vote for no one.[9][10][11] In India, poor peoples movements in Singur, Nandigram and Lalgarh have rejected parliamentary politics (as well as the NGO and Maoist alternatives).[12]

There have also been no vote campaigns in Canada[13] and Spain.

In September 2011, the New York Times argued that there was a growing "scorn for voting" around the world.[14]


In support for this non-political strategy, some non-voters claim that voting does not make any positive difference. "If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal," is an oft-cited sentiment attributed to anarchist Emma Goldman.[15]

In addition to strategic non-voters, there are also ethical non-voters, those who reject voting outright, not merely as an ineffective tactic for change, but moreover because they view the act as either a grant of consent to be governed by the state, a means of imposing illegitimate control over one's countrymen, or both. Thus, this view holds that through voting, one necessarily finds themselves violating the non-aggression principle. Herbert Spencer noted that whether a person votes for the winning candidate, votes for a losing candidate, or abstains from voting, he will be deemed to have consented to the rule of the winning candidate.[16]


Murray Rothbard

, while a libertarian himself, criticized the New Libertarian Manifesto‍ '​s arguments that voting is immoral or undesirable:[17]

Samuel Edward Konkin III


See also


  1. ^ Hernandez, Raymond and Christopher Drew (2007-12-07). "It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo". New York Times. 
  2. ^ Voted both aye and no - from The Public Whip. Published 24 April 2012 and retrieved 4 May 2012.
  3. ^ Recording Abstentions by Lord Norton, from Published 20 February 2011 and retrieved 4 May 2011.
  4. ^ "Voting Procedure". Rules of the United States Senate. Retrieved 2011-07-25. 
  5. ^ "The 'No Land, No House, No Vote' campaign still on for 2009".  
  6. ^ "IndyMedia Presents: No Land! No House! No Vote!". Anti-Eviction Campaign. 2005-12-12. 
  7. ^ No Vote" Campaigns are not a Rejection of Democracy""". Mail and Guardian. 
  8. ^ UN HRC views in case Svetik v. Belarus, CCPR/C/81/D/927/2000, 2004
  9. ^ 'New York Times' Disgruntled Mexicans Plan an Election Message to Politicians: We Prefer Nobody
  10. ^ Vota en Blanco
  11. ^ 'Representative Democracy versus Participatory Democracy' by Nancy Davis, Narco News, 21 June 2009
  12. ^ No revolution for old radicals, 'Times of India', 21 June 2009
  13. ^ "Why I Don't Endorse Voting in the May 2nd Elections", by Rowland Túpac Keshena, 2011
  14. ^ As Scorn for Vote Grows, Protests Surge Around Globe, NICHOLAS KULISH, 27 September 2011
  15. ^ Goldman's actual writings expressed a distinct sentiment: "There is no hope even that woman, with her right to vote, will ever purify politics." Goldman, Emma (1911), "The Tragedy of Women's Emancipation", Anarchism and Other Essays (Second revised ed.), Mother Earth Publishing Association, pp. 219–231 
  16. ^ Spencer, Herbert (1851), The Right to Ignore the State 
  17. ^ Rothbard, Murray (10 November 1980), Konkin on Libertarian Strategy 
  18. ^ Samuel Edward Konkin III, Reply to Rothbard 

External links

  • From the elections to the conscious abstention
  • The Voluntaryist – Non-voting
  • Non-voting archive – Strike-the-root
  • Non-voting archive –
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.