The psychology of vetoing, protesting, excluding individuals or options, or removing an incumbent, triggers a very different cognitive bias and mode of risk aversion on the part of voters, legislators, or board members - thus it is an over-simplification to think of disapproval as simply 'negative approval'.
Similar asymmetries apply in economics, where they are studied in behavioral finance, and in social sciences and ethics, as the expression of tolerances versus preferences, e.g. as in opinion polls.
General-purpose methods of disapproval voting, e.g. for use in general elections as an electoral reform, have been proposed and discussed by political scientists, but there is little literature on the subject.
Most discussion of the issue is concentrated in the theory of consensus decision making, where small numbers of members disapproving of a measure have disproportionate power to block it.
Also, there has been an explosion of application of disapproval voting electoral systems in the reality game show, as noted below.
Given the prevalence of disapproval as a tool of government, including the criminal law and diplomatic relations, some see voting less as a positive and voluntary choice of a desirable outcome than as a way to reduce losses.
This suggestion, like most advocacy of electoral systems, is controversial as it implies that voters cannot measure both tolerances and preferences for themselves, and come to conclusions that consider both.
Support in this ratification vote of less than 67–80% is taken as a strong disapproval – and most likely ends the rise of that individual at his current level.
In the Westminster system, the person or persons who lose a motion of no confidence are normally expected to resign as a matter of constitutional convention, and in the case of an executive a general election normally results, unless a replacement government (typically a new prime minister, who can subsequently appoint a new cabinet) can be approved in a motion of confidence.