I'll Take "None of the Above"

Remove all ads!

Here's an interesting tidbit. Nevada is the only state in the US that has "None of these candidates" as an option at the ballot. It's rather quirky in that it allows you to cast a protest vote. On one level, I can see the appeal of such an option, on the other hand, I cannot belive it is used as frequently as it is (about 4% in most elections vote "None"). The reason why I'm surprised is NOT because I cannot believe that 4% or so of all people would feel that way. It's because I cannot see the sense of showing up to vote and then... not voting. If I was that displeased about my choices of candidates, I'd just stay home rather than vote none, because it's the same thing.

I can see some utility in the option if you wanted to vote for certain candidates, but had no interest in other candidates, but there was never a requirement that when you show up to vote you had to vote for all the races anyway - it was perfectly fine to only cast votes in the races you were interested in.

And to answer the two inevitable questions that will follow: 1) No, the option of "None of these candidates" as never "won" a general election and 2) If "None of these candidates" were to receive a plurality or outright majority of the vote, the second place candidate would be awarded the victory.

That said, there have been instances where the total votes for "None of these candidates" exceeded the difference in votes of the major party candidates.

 

I easily see the point of a protest vote over no vote at all. By voting you participate in the democratic process even if you do not vote for any candidate. You show that you care even if none of the options appeal to you while if you do not vote at all you should a disregard for the democratic process and your responsibility as a citizen.

 

I would prefer the option of being able to take away a vote from the least appealing candidate if you didn't like the options presented. Then, when they tallied up the votes, the candidate with the negative number closest to zero would win.

 

I agree with Joac. Casting a vote of protest is a vote. If you just stay home, some assume that you just don't care enough. Casting a protest vote demostrates that you care enough to show-up and vote, even though the choices basically suck. There are many times I wish I could cast that protest vote instead of having to vote the "lesser incomptent fool" into a public office.

 

I get the whole voting for no one says that you care, but don't like the options, and not showing up to vote is like saying you just don't care, or would be content with any of the options. My point is a bit simplistic, but I'm just saying that in practice, voting for none is the same (as far as impact in the process is concerned) as not showing up to vote at all.

 

Some systems are a bit like that. The Single Transferable Vote system and the Preferential Vote system are a tiny bit like that, in that they somewhat take into account the candidates that people hate. Your current systems rewards polarity, in that you only need to make a majority like you, even if you piss off everyone else. But in preferential systems you rank candidates or get more than one vote, so better rewards candidates who have a wider appeal, but maybe less fanatical support.

 

It's a good idea. In the UK the BNP got voted in as a European MP because of protest voting. We now have a party that many people class as racist because people wanted to show their disapproval of the other parties

 

HB,

In a lot of elections - including the President - you don't even need a majority in the US. Simply having a plurality of the popular vote is often enough to win the office. Technically, you need a majority of electoral votes, but there have been numerous instances where the winning candidate did not receive the majority of the popular vote. Take Bill Clinton as an example. When he won the 1992 and 1996 elections, there was a popular 3rd party candidate on the ballot - Ross Perot. Clinton didn't receive a majority of the popular vote either time (although he did win a plurality both times).

And the electoral college is also screwy, in that sometimes, the guy with the largest popular vote count doesn't win the presidency. The "winners who lost list" includes from oldest to most recent:

Andrew Jackson losing to John Quincy Adams
Sam Tilden losing the Rutherford B. Hayes
Grover Cleveland losing to Benjamin Harrison
and most recently, Al Gore losing to George Bush

All of these "losers" received at least a plurality (and in some cases an outright majority) of the popular vote. Jackson and Cleveland went on to win the following presidential election.

 

I think 'none of the above' is a stupid idea. The candidate you hate the most will be delighted, as he/she was the one you would have voted against. You won't get your perfect candidate but you can at least try to get somebody who shares some of your beliefs.

Dustin the Turkey (a tv puppet) regularly outpolls serious candidates in our presidential elections.

I wouldn't be mad on negative voting either, it greatly encourages middle of the road candidates rather than ones with beliefs. I'd fancy someone nobody cares about to win with a vote count of zero. We use a preferential system and most candidates are completely void of any ideology one way or the other.

 

If Utah offered that option, I'd use it. I'd be willing to go to my polling place so I can tell the government that I think that the candidates are F***ING idiots and I choose to vote for none of them....better luck next time with getting candidates who aren't retarded or corrupt....or both.

 

One thing I think you've forgotten (or at least, I'm assuming Nevada does it the same way we do) is that there are multiple elections on the ballot. You may go out to vote, be an avid supporter of one candidate for Sherriff, and deeply hate all the other candidates for all the other positions.

 

I brought that point up in my initial post. However, there is no rule that states you have to vote for all the offices on the ballot. If you go, vote for Sheriff, and leave the rest of the ballot blank, you voted "none of the above" for all other offices, regardless of whether there is such a box to check or not.

 

Maybe they're worried about someone filling in their vote for them? This would help prevent that, on a paper ballot at least. Or, if they're just a little upset at politics, and they're there anyway, voting "None of the Above" is a good stress reliever for little work.

After all, if you're there anyway, why not?