Voters for None of the Above

Topic of Debate: Should a permanent, binding "None of the Above" option be added to each ballot?

Should a permanent, binding "None of the Above" option be added to each ballot?

Interesting concept. On first impression, it strikes me that the biggest potential problem is this: what if a simple majority of the voters don't like any candidates (while the rest keep "splitting" their vote between the major party lines) election after election after election, and many years pass before there is a successful election? Is that really better than holding out until a good candidate gets enough votes to succeed?

Whether I've disagreed or agreed with you crashfourit, I must say that I've always found you to be very forward-thinking and looking at "the big picture" when it comes to politics. I absolutely love the idea of NOTA, which is why I have it in my signature.

In regards to the debate question-as much as I love the idea of NOTA, I know that realistically, it is only likely to be adopted at the local level. I also believe that it will never be adopted at the federal or state levels unless the legislative branch members at both levels suddenly have a spur of honesty. Movements like NOTA can only succeed in anti-incumbent election periods.

But one thing I would add:
One might have to limit the number of special elections.
That said, I would say two (excluding the original) would be a good number.

To nebraska29: Thanks for the compliment!!!

Aha - now here's a hypothetical of yours I really do like!

I myself would go further - I would link compulsory voting (as in New Zealand and Australia) to NOTA, and I would keep ballots open until a pre-set quorum of votes had been reached (say, 75% of electors for a general election and maybe higher or lower for other types of poll - maybe 90% for constitutional amendments?)

I don't see that NOTA would stop people being elected - it's just a formalised way of gaugeing voter disenchantment. Compulsory voting does away with voter apathy, so it leaves politicians with nobody but themselves to blame for any lack of popularity, and makes it clear how much of a mandate they do (or do not) have.

A recent example might be instructive - in the recent UK European parliament elections, a party called the UK Independence Party ("UKIP") got about 17% of the votes cast. On a turnout just below 40% - which equates to 7-8% of the electorate. Yet, to listen to their speechifying after the results, you would think that the vast majority of Britons were so hostile to the EU that they wanted to withdraw from it altogether, in line with UKIP policy. Er, no. It would be much safer to say that the vast majority (i.e. over 60%) of us don't care enough about it to have expressed an opinion.

I think NOTA, with compulsory voting, would make it more transparent just how unpopular some (seemingly popular) ideas are.

I've always liked this sort of idea. The limited re-elections would probably be essential, especially in the US as there are only 2 large parties. A vote to abstain might see a number of smaller parties emerge to take a larger share of the vote, giving people who are disillusioned by the Democrats/Republicans something proper to vote for. I know I would feel kind of hollow voting to say 'I don't like anyone', I would rather give my support to a party or candidate that shared my views even if it was only to a certain extent.

It's a small change to the election process, but it could have profound effects on the system.

I absolutely love this idea. I think it would be a terrific way to send a signal to the current political parties that the candidates they submit (on some occasions), need work.

Frankly, I wish that option were available for the Presidential Election this year. NOTA would likely outvote Bush & Kerry by a landslide

Give me a few months to change my name to NOTA and I’ll be behind this all the way!

Actually, I see that as one of the major draw backs. Certain as the sun rises some nutter will have their name changed and file for candidacy at the board of elections.

This idea certainly has some merit, and Crashforit I like your proposed amendment, limiting the reelections to two.

Another issue I see is what if a candidate runs unopposed, other than the NOTA? We have an excellent state Rep that has run unopposed for years because he’s that good. If the uninformed turned out and voted NOTA, they could undermine an outstanding statesman and we the tax payers get stuck footing another senseless bill.

But I think the problem this attempts to resolve only hides one of the major issues that I see keeps potentially great candidates from running: the exposure of their personal lives.

I would surmise that the election slate would be wiped clean and the whole process starts over. I don't see why the incumbent wouldn't file to run again, or would be barred from doing so. It might also help him/her get it through their noggin' that they need to change their views or get into contact with the grassroots over some issue that the people are obviously concerned about.

The uninformed voter(a contradiction in terms in my opinion) could theoretically take out a good statesman, it's just a part of the gamble that we accept having a representative democracy. I would appeal to the supreme court and have the uninformed voter taken out! Didn't you hear the supreme court has taken action on this!?



and..............


The Onion

Uninformed voter taken care of!

This is a problem? If this happened in enough state constituencies to prevent a Congressional quorum, I'd see that as a major solution to over-legislation by the professional politician class.

I think it's an excellent idea. In fact, I'd say that if NOTA gets a majority of the votes, there shouldn't be a run-off election. The seat should remain vacant until the next election cycle. I would - maybe - make an exception for executive positions (mayor, governor, president), but we could certainly do without a few legislators for several years.

I'm in two minds about Julian's idea of a compulsory quota of votes, but that's the stuff of another thread...

I disagree that a "none of the above" option" should ever be placed on a ballot.

If a voter does not like any of the candidates they won't vote at all, that isyour "none" option. A "none of the above" option is not a vote, it is a distraction from the process and not a choice.

If the grass roots is so upset with the candidate they should get involved and find a candidate they like!

Welcome cogito ergo sum! Good to have you hear at America's Debate.



Very good point here-I guess that NOTA is different in that it would not allow a politician to chalk up a low vote total to apathy and indifference. It also allows one to "stick-it" to an incumbent so to speak.



Great point here, the problem is if there is only one candidate(the incumbent) and those who are voting and politically "with it" have no other recourse to register their displeasure with the incumbent. Yes, I can leave it blank, but state senator I.B. Corrupt won't know the sentiments of myself or others like me if no one else has the time, finances, or family situtation to allow for a political run.

Once again, welcome to A.D. and post often!

Should a permanent, binding "None of the Above" option be added to each ballot?

Ohh... I really like this one. Perhaps there could be a limit to the number of run-off elections before the NOTA option was dropped. Wertz made the point that it would eliminate over-legislation, but at the same time it would leave some voters without a representative. Perhaps in a national election the repspective parties could choose an alternate nominee; if the main nominees fail to garner more votes than the NOTA, they are replaced by the secondary nominees-- this obviously doesn't work with the incumbent. This saves the trouble of people continuing to vote between (essentially) two candidates they don't like. I'd much prefer John Edwards to John Kerry. I think that the NOTA would be a much more accurate approval rating, and it'd give voters time to contemplate the candidates again. It would also possibly open the doors to third parties. Perhaps if people cannot elect either of the two major parties because of the NOTA, they would consider other candidates.

This wouldn't work. If you don't like any candidates for an office simple do not vote in that category. The candidates in the "follow-up election" might not be any better or different. (Talking specifically about the Presidency now) Besides, the candidates who are running are running because they won the primary election for their party, so you are not going to get very unpopular people on the ballot because they are the most popular candidate in his or her party. Not to mention the fact that who would be the President while all these "follow-up elections" took place? It would be better if we just kept the system the way it is, it has worked for us the past 228 years, so why changed it now with "follow-up elections" that will delay who wins the office?

I honestly do not see this working at all. First, even if it was on the ballot, the impact it would have is pretty much nothing. Almost as if you didnt vote at all. But lets say hypothetically that it was widely used. You cannot have elections put off time after time even if it is limited. What happens if still nobody is elected at the end of the "limit"?

I agree 100% with mpfeif101 and his points. Things are fine the way they are. You do not like the 2 party candidates? Vote 3rd party. If you do not like that...put yourself on the ballot... or anyone at all. Bottom Line: This would be pointless to do since most of the country votes along party lines and only a smaller minority are independent or choose candidates differently.

All I can really say is that if there was a NOTA option on either the local, state, or national ballot, I would be very, very happy with this november. I totally support this hypothetical, heres hoping...

Crashfourit, what a great idea! I am afraid it would probably backfire however. Would the incumbent continue in power for example? Many opportunities for abuse and corruption here. Likewise, if no one were elected, would we be without a president for an indeterminate length of time? This could be dangerous, especially when it is not the President who needs his power checked as much as the Congress (although a good argument could be made for both).

I guess I have a dark sense of humor because I think it would be fun to try it. "None of the above", absolutely hilarious. Seriously speaking, I think run-off voting is the best way to cure some of the ills of a poor partisan primary electoral process.

You bring up some valid concerns, the prime one being-the practicality of conducting an IRV vote at the presidential level. Although I attempted to answer your statement on that one, I believe that perhaps your right and that this idea should just be reserved for usage at the state and local level.



I've seen this process work(when I was working with my local greens) the "runoffs" are just the ballot marks retabulated again. It's feasible that in the case of a nationl election, that it could be completed within two days. You have certified counters in every state who can handle the duty.



That is a very valid point. In a lot of cases though, the nominee may not have faced competition, or even adequate competition at that.



Even unpopular incumbents have an advantage. They have campaign money, fingers in state party finances, PAC & lobbyist money, as well as issue groups that give volunteers. I've known unpopular people in a party just be waited out by their fellow party members due to how entrenched they were in their position.



That is true as well, but the individual voter does not HAVE to fill in lines 2 to 5 or what have you. If they just want to vote for one guy, then they could do so.

The only problem with that is that the new candidates would have absolutely no time to campaign...

You raise a good point, and I will attempt to answer it here. The timeline for the election would not change at all. Campaign time would be the exact same for everyone, from the time they declare until November. Since every state is in charge of counting the ballots, they could ostensibly complete it in the time that they currently do.

That is true, but all in all I still feel NOTA is not a good idea. It's basically just delaying the election. If you do not like any of the candidates, you can do something about it, this is America. You can simply not vote for that office or nominate yourself or someone else to run. An example of this is the California Recall Election, there were like 150 people on the ballot to be the new governor, from actors to lawyers to porn stars.

Let me just add my thoughts to this, and then I will back out of this thread completely. I thought the California race was a great example of "power to the people" at its greatest. I really got angry at those in the media who viewed it as a freak-show, and as something that would contribute to the "instability" of the political process. How that instability would occur was something that they never fully explained. NOTA is not something in which you vote against everyone just for the sake of being against "the man" or anything like that. NOTA would be an option, but it doesn't target that kind of an election. It targets uncompetitive races, or races filled with unattractive candidates who secured the nomination solely through biding their time and supporting the party. Yes, you can sit at home and not vote for Senator I.B. Corrupt, but if your party puts someone in there who is the sacrificial lamb and who has no financial backing, you could still take out Sen. I. B. Corrupt and don't have to resign yourself to not really having a chance. Having the backing of the party is sometimes more important than having the backing of the people at large.

Yes NOTA should be on the ballot. NOTA serves the following purposes:

*it informs politicians that the majority of voters were dissatisfied with all of the other candidates
*it can hopefully bring forth better candidates for voters
*it can inspire voter turnout by showing that votes really do get counted in the manner voters intended for them to be counted