Should We Have a "None of the Above" Option?

Should all states be required to include a "none of the above" option on the presidential ballot?

Voting third party or submitting a write-in ballot are two alternative ways to demonstrate displeasure with the main candidates/parties. Staying home is a third alternative. But none of these options are likely to affect how the parties design their platforms or elect their candidates in the long run. Politicians don't care about those who aren't likely to vote on election day, and splitting dissatisfied voters between numerous third party or non-candidates fogs and confuses the message of dissatisfaction. Third party votes are typically viewed as votes made in support of those candidates, and in endorsement of their platforms, not as votes against the others.

A "none of the above" option would allow the public to send a clear message of dissatisfaction.

Do you think it would be a good idea? You can also state what you think should happen were the option to win a plurality or a majority of the vote. Nothing could happen -- it could be a purely symbolic choice, and the candidate with the next-most votes could win. It could result in the disqualification of the candidates....you choose.

My state was the ONLY state that had that option and those bad boy Repugnantcans made us remove it this year by getting a judge to rule that ir was not a viable option. So, sorry, ain't no hope.

Vote for Gary Johnson instead. He's the none-of-the above rep this year.

Open national elections just like open primaries. If the person meets the qualifications and has the right number of valid signatures let him/her run. Back this up with a national campaign fund. Put some competititon in the competition.

specklebang said:

My state was the ONLY state that had that option and those bad boy Repugnantcans made us remove it this year by getting a judge to rule that ir was not a viable option. So, sorry, ain't no hope.

Vote for Gary Johnson instead. He's the none-of-the above rep this year.

Click to expand...

I would, but I probably agree with his platform even less than Romney and Obama's.

I don't think that's a terrible idea, so long as you combine it with preferential ballots.

By allowing voters to rank candidates you allow voters to actually express what they feel. Someone could vote for 1) None of the above, 2) Gary Johnson, 3). Romney. Since Romney and Obama are going to be the two biggest vote getters, their vote would essentially count for Romney, but they'd also be able to express their dissatisfaction for Romney and their extreme dissatisfaction for Obama.

Or someone could vote for 1). Obama, 2). Romney. This would say that they like Obama, but Romney would be fine.

The end result is that by giving voters more freedom to express nuance at the ballot box, we can better communicate our will to our elected officials.

My point was (I think) that it won't happen. The GOP is against the idea and willing to take it to court. They won the argument because the judge ruled that none of the above was unelectable.

Mithros said:

I don't think that's a terrible idea, so long as you combine it with preferential ballots.

By allowing voters to rank candidates you allow voters to actually express what they feel. Someone could vote for 1) None of the above, 2) Gary Johnson, 3). Romney. Since Romney and Obama are going to be the two biggest vote getters, their vote would essentially count for Romney, but they'd also be able to express their dissatisfaction for Romney and their extreme dissatisfaction for Obama.

Or someone could vote for 1). Obama, 2). Romney. This would say that they like Obama, but Romney would be fine.

The end result is that by giving voters more freedom to express nuance at the ballot box, we can better communicate our will to our elected officials.

Click to expand...

There are other 3rd party candidates so if Johnson is not for you, try Jill Stein or similar.

The object is to try and bring some humility to the final winner.

Krhazy said:

I would, but I probably agree with his platform even less than Romney and Obama's.

Click to expand...

I keep looking at both presidential candidates,(all the while shaking my head) and constant say out loud, "Really? Really? This is the best this country can come up with for us to choose from"?"
I'm all in favor of the "None Of The Above" option.

There is already a None of the Above option for those foolish enough to take the time to go vote and then take a pass at the booth - just use the write-in line. As for a permanent and specific None of the Above option, no, that's not the purpose of the ballot.

Sadly most Americans WANT the hosed up two party system we have now. Americans like partisan politics. They will not vote outside of their party. Both ruling parties know this. It is fact and as long as most of the American body politic remains nutless the nation will get what get what Congress and the people who own Congress want Americans to have.

Krhazy said:

Should all states be required to include a "none of the above" option on the presidential ballot?

Voting third party or submitting a write-in ballot are two alternative ways to demonstrate displeasure with the main candidates/parties. Staying home is a third alternative. But none of these options are likely to affect how the parties design their platforms or elect their candidates in the long run. Politicians don't care about those who aren't likely to vote on election day, and splitting dissatisfied voters between numerous third party or non-candidates fogs and confuses the message of dissatisfaction. Third party votes are typically viewed as votes made in support of those candidates, and in endorsement of their platforms, not as votes against the others.

A "none of the above" option would allow the public to send a clear message of dissatisfaction.

Do you think it would be a good idea? You can also state what you think should happen were the option to win a plurality or a majority of the vote. Nothing could happen -- it could be a purely symbolic choice, and the candidate with the next-most votes could win. It could result in the disqualification of the candidates....you choose.

Click to expand...

If politicians don't care about those who are not likely to vote, why should they care about those who are likely to vote "none of the above"?

IMO, this notion is just an added expense to the ballot creation process with no visible use.

Maybe pollsters should be asking that question. Might be more useful that way.

On most elections there are at least a couple things I don't vote on. Are you required to choose something for every item on the ballot?

Though I've never not voted for president. I can at least find a third party to vote for, and think it sends a stronger message. If a third party gets a good number of votes hopefully someone interprets that in "People like what the third party stands for" and borrows some of their stuff into the main parties.

Mycroft said:

If politicians don't care about those who are not likely to vote, why should they care about those who are likely to vote "none of the above"?

IMO, this notion is just an added expense to the ballot creation process with no visible use.

Maybe pollsters should be asking that question. Might be more useful that way.

Click to expand...

If "none of the above" winning meant new candidates had to be picked and a new election held, they'd care. Admittedly, that would be extreme and probably impractical. But even if "none of the above" winning had no direct effect on the election outcome, it would embarrass bad candidates/parties and stimulate public discourse about the failure of recent elections to produce quality candidates. Right now, IMO, that discussion is not being had because the true levels of voter dissatisfaction are hidden by a system that requires you to vote "for" candidates, instead of against them.

Polling would be helpful as well, but those types of polls seem to be ignored by the media and public, since they don't really have any bearing on who is going to win. Election results are a little different, however.

Krhazy said:

Should all states be required to include a "none of the above" option on the presidential ballot?

Voting third party or submitting a write-in ballot are two alternative ways to demonstrate displeasure with the main candidates/parties. Staying home is a third alternative. But none of these options are likely to affect how the parties design their platforms or elect their candidates in the long run. Politicians don't care about those who aren't likely to vote on election day, and splitting dissatisfied voters between numerous third party or non-candidates fogs and confuses the message of dissatisfaction. Third party votes are typically viewed as votes made in support of those candidates, and in endorsement of their platforms, not as votes against the others.

A "none of the above" option would allow the public to send a clear message of dissatisfaction.

Do you think it would be a good idea? You can also state what you think should happen were the option to win a plurality or a majority of the vote. Nothing could happen -- it could be a purely symbolic choice, and the candidate with the next-most votes could win. It could result in the disqualification of the candidates....you choose.

Click to expand...

It's a good idea, but I do have somebody to vote for - Gary Johnson.

Krhazy said:

Should all states be required to include a "none of the above" option on the presidential ballot?

Voting third party or submitting a write-in ballot are two alternative ways to demonstrate displeasure with the main candidates/parties. Staying home is a third alternative. But none of these options are likely to affect how the parties design their platforms or elect their candidates in the long run. Politicians don't care about those who aren't likely to vote on election day, and splitting dissatisfied voters between numerous third party or non-candidates fogs and confuses the message of dissatisfaction. Third party votes are typically viewed as votes made in support of those candidates, and in endorsement of their platforms, not as votes against the others.

A "none of the above" option would allow the public to send a clear message of dissatisfaction.

Do you think it would be a good idea? You can also state what you think should happen were the option to win a plurality or a majority of the vote. Nothing could happen -- it could be a purely symbolic choice, and the candidate with the next-most votes could win. It could result in the disqualification of the candidates....you choose.

Click to expand...

Yup. The last two elections I selected no candidates and then I pushed the "vote" button.

I suspect that frequently people somehow feel obligated to select a candidate, so they just randomly select one or they vote straight ticket without knowing anything about anyone on the ballet. I mean how else did that Alvin Greene fellow get so many votes a couple years ago in SC - he was not only litteraly insane, he also had sex charges pending against him. Having a "none of the above" option might make voters realize that they don't have to vote for every race.

I think that voting for no one probably creates the biggest statement possible. When parties are determining platforms and what type of candidates they should create, their are three groups of potential voters that don't make a difference and three types of potential voters that make a huge difference. The three groups that don't matter are the people who never vote, people who always vote but vote straight republican or straight democrats. The straight ticket voters don't matter because they only vote on party affiliation and are pretty much going to vote that way despite who the other party has running and despite how pathetic their own parties nominees are. People who never vote are assumed to be apathetic or just not interested in politics.

It's always swing voters, occasional voters, and people who cast blank ballets who change the outcome. They are the ones that the parties try to woo, and they are the voters who are the most likely to promote change (and sometimes hope) - aaa, even if that doesn't always work out so well. If we had more swing voters, more occasional voters, and more blank ballet/protest voters, we the parties would probably work harder to come up with better candidates.

danarhea said:

It's a good idea, but I do have somebody to vote for - Gary Johnson.

Click to expand...

I have seriously considered him despite the fact I am only about 51% in agreement with him. I still think that my vote would count more if I cast a blank ballet. I also don't think that 51% is enough of an agreement to warrant voting for him, I probably agree with Obama more than I agree with Johnson. I'm a little more in agreement with Jill Stien than any of the other candidates, maybe something like 60% there, I really like the idea of a full employment program, and a lot of her other ideas, but she is way to "green" for me and I can't support some of her ideas about education, unions, nuclear power, coal plants, government subsidised housing, foregiving debt, free college, and a bunch of other stuff. That constitutional party guy is way towards the far right and that doesn't work for me either.

Krhazy said:

Should all states be required to include a "none of the above" option on the presidential ballot?

Voting third party or submitting a write-in ballot are two alternative ways to demonstrate displeasure with the main candidates/parties. Staying home is a third alternative. But none of these options are likely to affect how the parties design their platforms or elect their candidates in the long run. Politicians don't care about those who aren't likely to vote on election day, and splitting dissatisfied voters between numerous third party or non-candidates fogs and confuses the message of dissatisfaction. Third party votes are typically viewed as votes made in support of those candidates, and in endorsement of their platforms, not as votes against the others.

A "none of the above" option would allow the public to send a clear message of dissatisfaction.

Do you think it would be a good idea? You can also state what you think should happen were the option to win a plurality or a majority of the vote. Nothing could happen -- it could be a purely symbolic choice, and the candidate with the next-most votes could win. It could result in the disqualification of the candidates....you choose.

Click to expand...

Sending your vote to a third party is no different than a "none of the above" option(in the sense you're putting it), no? :shrug:

After this election, we won’t need a RNC.
We will need a Tea Party.

Darroll said:

After this election, we won’t need a RNC.
We will need a Tea Party.

Click to expand...

Mind if I ask why?

There is a none of the above option--the undervote. You show up and vote, just not in the Presidential race. You are not required to cast a Presidential vote in order for your other votes to count.

Krhazy said:

Do you think it would be a good idea? You can also state what you think should happen were the option to win a plurality or a majority of the vote. Nothing could happen -- it could be a purely symbolic choice, and the candidate with the next-most votes could win. It could result in the disqualification of the candidates....you choose.

Click to expand...

That's the major problem though. If you think you can change anything by making a meaningless protest vote every few years you're kidding yourself. If you really feel there is so much wrong with all the candidates or the system in general, you need to get off your backside and actually do something practical about it. If you're not bothered enough to do that, you're not really in a position to complain about what we're left with.

Don't like Romney.
He knows his past work record and he does not care.