What about 'None of the above'?

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Here is a situation, much in the spirit of the hypothetical quizzes that Mahnmut often likes to present us with.

Say you are the head of government of your country. Now there is a group of political activists who claim to be representing the "silent majority" of moderate people, who are independent as far as political affiliations go. You realise they are potentially the difference between winning an election and losing an election.

Now, they are petitioning you to add an option to future ballots, saying 'None of the Above', so that when a voter feels they do not necessarily approve of any of the candidates because those fail to represent their political views, they could put a cross on the 'Neither' option and be done with it.

Well of course if the 'None' option wins a majority on the election, this would require a new election with other candidates, wouldn't it? Which could get a bit costly. And this is the counter argument against this idea.

One side says that when you are voting and all the options suck, you shouldn't be compelled to hold your nose and vote for the 'lesser evil' among two or more. And adding 'None of the Above' to the ballot would ensure that people have a real say at all times, even if sometimes that choice is to reject all the options they have been presented with.

The other side says there is no sense in all this. Those who want to run for office have already been put on the ballot, and if none of the presented options suits the voter, they better ignore the whole thing. One could go even further and suggest that the number of options should be limited even more, not expanded. By tightening the census criteria on who could run for office, to make sure that only the 'proper' sort of people with political and life experience would have access to the positions of power. In addition, that might eliminate some costly extra expenses like runoff elections, etc.

Which side of this debate are you on, and why? Or are you in the middle, i.e. on the 'None of the Above' side? ;-)

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I actually think this is one of the few good ideas out of the old Soviet Union and would support this option. IIRC at least in the Gorbachev era there was a None of the Above option and some guys failed to get re-elected because of a majority vote for None of the Above. I just don't know how you'd transfer this into the specific US system in terms of Congress. The Presidency likewise would be difficult because there is a none of the above option, namely having the House of Representatives vote on the next President in the contingency nobody wins an electoral majority.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

People can vote none of the above to some extent already. As for whether or not this would make it for someone to be illegitimate to be on the ballot? I'm against it.

[737-700.livejournal.com]

If one does not like any of the options on the ballot, there is the write in option. (In the states I have lived this is an option provided the person meets the qualifications for the office.)

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

This is not as powerful as "none of the above" because it dilutes the voice of dissent. None of the write-in candidates is likely to garner a plurality. It is similar to abstaining from voting altogether.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Say you are the head of government...

Well in that case, no I don't like that option - terrrrrrrible idea.

Since I'm not though, it seems like it could work. I always thought a Borda-count election would work, but probably only if there were 4 or 5 candidates - no more, no less.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

What is a borda-count election? I'm sorry that I ask, I could probably Wiki it, but still... :-)

[oportet.livejournal.com]

It's just ranking the options you are given.

Let's say there are four candidates. You, the voter, put them in order of who you want.

Whoever you rank 1st gets 4 points. 2nd gets 3 points. 3rd gets 2 points. 4th gets 1 point.

Slovenia, Kiribati, and Nauru use this method (I definitely had to wiki that) - along with a bunch of sport's MVP voting (not that one though!)

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I would tend to side with Nauru and Kiribati then!

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I dunno that it'd work everywhere. Remember, the US had people horribly confused by the "butterfly" ballots, so this... this is unlikely.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

While the STV election system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) doesn't allow for a NONE OF THE ABOVE option it does present an alternative to WINNER TAKES ALL that is preferred by many. It may put some disgruntled voters at ease over the slate of "less then perfect" candidates much like the WRITE IN CANDIDATE option does.

A problem with democracy is when it works as it's supposed to, it's always a choice imperfect candidates. I don't expect candidates to be perfect candidates, as I've never heard of a perfect person (well, there are mythical exceptions, but they never vote, much less run for office). Fact is we'll always have a electoral choice between jerks of varying degrees. Occasionally there will be a candidate I like very much, but I've never accepted everything somebody believes in and stands for.

Perhaps perfection is not what this NONE OF THE ABOVE folks expect. They can accept certain flaws. What they can't accept is a slate of candidates who are all of the same side of the political spectrum. I mean that's the problem I see with USA politics... that those deemed to be on the American left (and even called "socialists") are all still pretty right of centre from my perspective. So given this reality that there are no true socialist candidates running for American office I may prefer to either not vote or vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

research Instant Runoff Voting and get back with me.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Those Englishmen are strange... I've heard of some of them changing their names to those of their favourite football clubs. Like Manchester United. :-)

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

That sounds like a Monty Python skit.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Voting without voting, sounds like an enlightened buddhist monk mantra.

It could be exploited as a means of circumventing the limit on political office terms.

1. George Bush Jr. serves two terms.
2. *None of the above* option wins.
3. George Bush Jr. serves an additional term.
4. *None of the above* option wins, again.
5. George Bush Jr. serves an additional term.

On and on, until anarchy reigns and the country is a smoking ruin.

I would not support it on this basis. D:

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Wasn't there a limit to the number of presidential terms?

And after two Bush terms, I doubt anyone would have voted "none of the above". :-)

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Whenever the US government says they'll fix something, they have a habit of making it worse.

They say the TSA will improve airport security. They say SOPA will fix the internet. Claim stimulus solves the job issue. That the Patriot Act was needed to "fight terrorism". In a sense, everytime they say they're fixing something they're breaking it in a way that allows them greater abuse of power. Obamacare is no different...

If they said they were "fixing the voting system" by implementing new standards & introducing a none of the above option, it would really mean they're breaking the system in new and unexciting ways. D:

/doom & gloom

=:D

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I'd be ok with it for any office other than POTUS, provided that if None Of The Above wins, none of the candidates who ran are eligible to run in the immediate election that then takes place.

However, you HAVE to have a commander in chief, and I'd rather not throw that to the House of Rabble Representatives every four years.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

IRV would solve this problem, but yeah, I kinda like the NOTA option. I wouldn't if I were in office, of course.

Washington State has the worst possible system. In the primaries, the top two candidates get to run against each other in the general election. This was so obviously the work of career politicians. Put more than two viable candidates in an election and negative/attack ads don't work, and those are the easiest strategies to use.

Hence, campaigning has been a little more brutal of late, contributing to voter burn-out.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I think the thing that gets the voters most worn out is the protracted primaries/general election campaign. It's just too long in the US. You get the feeling that they are in an eternal election mode. People could get fed up with it. Or maybe this is the purpose.

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

I disagree, for primaries, the media and party establishments tend to try to rush these. So what tends to happen is people in states that vote later on get pushed into a narrow set of choices, which is usually already determined by the handful of early voting states.

I think what wears people out more is probably the non stop media coverage, not the race itself. Especially when they focus on superficial stories about a candidates dog, or the vacation they took, or things like that. :p

You could be right, it could be on purpose. If you noticed in the Republican primary this year, the media was always commenting about how it was going on "too long" and how Romney was having to battle "longer than expected" etc, etc.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

They have to fill those 24 hours of air time with something... anything! :-)

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

If I were a head of a government, then yes I suppose this idea would be acceptable. It would give the people an outlet, and reason to vote, and to feel that they are choosing, while they are not happy with the major choices they are usually presented with. Depends on the system of government and voting, though. The worst case scenario, as a head of government, would be people losing confidence in democracy and feeling that their vote doesn't matter.

In a two party system like the US, then I would argue we already effectively have this-- third parties. Third parties act as ether a symbolic vote of no confidence in the two party system and/or as a spoiler.

If I were an activist in the group, it might be a good way to show our strength in numbers as an electorate...and to help build the movement. Future politicians could use that to determine just how much of a swing vote we would be, and it might spur people sharing our ideals to run for office (in races they can actually win). But in terms of gaining real political power and influence, the actual vote wouldn't accomplish much.