Would you support "None of the above.." on a ballot?
 

This was raised by a poster in another thread, and although it might have been a bit tongue-in-cheek, I actually wonder if it is feasible. Would you support a ballot that contained a "none of the above" type answer? That way, anyone who "refuses to vote" can actually be tallied and given a representative figure on vote counts. Maybe then politicians could see how many people were unconvinced by their platform or their stand on certain issues. Likewise, it would allow for much more accurate counts of how many people actually aren't voting.. I think if people were given the option to disagree with the candidates and still feel like they've "voted", it might satiate a lot of the more rebellious among us. The reason I'm less inclined to vote is when I feel like neither of the candidates have an agreeable platform --- perhaps this would also inspire smaller parties (Greens, etc..) after seeing the number of non-voting voters.

Good idea? Stupid idea? Whatcha think..?

I vote Libertarian. What do you think? ;)

Seriously...no. Why? Because...well, let's take a look at this past presidential election as a perfect example. With the (let's face it) two candidates, that we had to choose from, ...what if "None Of The Above"...actually won?

Hmm.. good point. Let the parties have a month to switch candidates and re-vote? I'm not really sure.. there's gotta be a way to deal with the possibility of NONE winning.. I'd think the parties themselves would solve the problem before it happened -- if they honestly believed their candidate would lose to no candidate.. there's a problem.

Having a "none of the above" option would just provide people with another way to make their vote count for nothing. Unless your disdain for every candidate is exactly equal, throwing away your vote like this wouldn't make any sense.

But when the choices are pretty awful, why choose the "lesser of two evils"? I like the idea of telling the parties pretty solidly that no, we don't like the bullshit you're serving at the banquet this year. Do better.

Four words:

Floridian Nader voters, 2000

If they'd had a "none of the above" to choose, who knows how different our country would be right now? Impossible to say for the good or for the bad, but it would be a change. I think we NEED a change.

This is interesting-what if the "none of the above" option worked like no confidence votes in many parliments-where the current leaders must leave their positions. So if that option won on a ballot, the parties would have to nominate someone else. The logistics of this might not work, but I think that would show the current main parties how dissatisfying many of their current nominees for office are.

Sounds good to me. My only problem is that chances are the president at the time would have to stay in office during the time it takes for another election to take place. I don't like that part. And considering that people may not vote for any party's FIRST choice, the odds of them picking the second choice is even more slim, thus keeping the sitting president.. sitting... cuz someone would have to do it. Can't just kick out an entire branch of government w/o replacing it. (or can you.. hmm.)

I would rather see it made easier for more people to get on the ballot in all the states. Some parties have a hard time getting enough states to win even if people did suddenly begin voting for them.

I think we could kick out a branch or 2 of government ( maybe leave someone incharge or the mil and leave the Judiciary). Frankly, I'm still of the opinion the best thing Congress or a President can do is nothing.

Actually...That's kind of a funny idea. I mean, really, what if?

It's sort of the political equivalent to the question "If a Tree falls in the middle of the forest, and nobody is around to hear it..."

Or, perhaps it's more apt as Gary Larsen put it, ""If a Tree falls on a mime in the middle of the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does anybody care?"

Why write none of the above when you can simply write yourself in? And then get your friends to do likewise. If you get enough votes, you may be elected to some local political office. And then the fun begins.

Over here in Ireland, we briefly introduced electronic voting. It was seen as very important that such a system included the ability for a voter to 'spoil' their votes. I would support the inclusion of a 'none of the above' ballot, although I would probably never use it.

its certainly an interesting option, although i dont like the idea of someone staying in office while the parties mill around for a replacement... what people should do is find a candidate they like, no matter what party, and convince their friends to vote for that candidate. Hell, theres no rule saying a third party candidate cant win... its just kinda a natural grimace at that title. I dont think a vote of "none of the above" would be that great, although I do like it when compared to the vote of no confidence across the pond...

What about the possibility of having no president? But instead, have a head of state figure elected by the congress or senate and directed by them?

The Senate and Congress is elected by the people, thus, it's possible that the head of state figure is more likely to follow the general will of the people than the president himself. On the other hand, a party could dominate the senate and congress and could use it to control the head of state.

We do have a 'none of the above' option. Even on electronic ballots here in Texas, we have the option to decline to vote for any of the available candidates. It is called an undervote. I in fact encourage everyone to undervote elections in which they do not actually know the candidates or have a specific reason to support a particular one.

Undervotes are counted, and are noticed by candidate operatives. If an election gets an abnormally high rate of undervotes, it is taken as a sign of voter dislike for the involved candidates. The same is true of elections where a third party candidate does inexplicably well. These are not written off to apathy, since these are people that took the time to go to the polls and vote, but specifically declined to support either candidate in a particular race.

We also of course have the option of writing in someone, as those in San Diego are quite aware.

I thus see no reason to add a specific 'none of the above' option to the ballot.

Josh

thats exactly what I think would happen if the head of state was elected by congress. Also, lets look at the chain of command... congress rights the bills, and the president aprroves or vetos them. So essentially the seanate and house would be electing someone to approve thier bills! :crazy:

I'm speaking completely serious here, when I say, if the option of "none of the above" actually was the most popular, I think its time to rethink our current governmental structure.

I decided to moderate my own post.

I will simply say that I support this idea.

If there were a 'not Bush' or 'not Kerry' box, I would have checked them. The none of the above could still be contrued as being lazy. If you're trying to send a message, you want people to see you as active.

I frequently support none of the above on the ballot, but I vote for the Democrat anyway because he will be less evil than the republican in most cases.