A terrific idea! The best outcome would be that incumbents would be terrified that they'd be beaten by 'none of the above' and potential challengers would be far more ready to sign up for a contest.

We really do have a problem with lock-in incumbents: both the advantages of being in office (with name recognition) and the fund-raising advantages make it far too hard to challenge those who are cemented in place.

This report leaves out the most important question:
when the voters say "none of the above", have they just precluded the incumbent from running in the special election?

If not, then the same problem will arise 80 days later--the incumbent may have suffered a black eye, but they'll still have a huge advantage in money, connections, and all the other things that give incumbents free rides.

I think if you're going to do this, you should do it right:
"none of the above" means "I want to make sure that none of the idiots listed above gets in to office." For incumbents, it is a no-confidence vote.

That means anyone who is on the ticket in the regular election, including the incumbent, can run in the special election.

*That* would have some teeth.

sorry--typo there.

I meant "anyone who is on the regular ticket, including the incumbent, CANNOT run in the special election."

I think Count Cant is right for an ideal world, but I can't imagine something with that much teeth actually passing into law.

"In a state where 70 percent of candidates ran unopposed last year, the bill would let voters try to force competition by calling for a new election."

The linked article does not answer the obvious question: how many candidates run opposed in other states? It might or might not be unrealistic to do a nationwide survey, but they could at least check two or three other states.

And besides, when they say "70 percent of candidates", are they including everything from dog-catcher on up? Or just the state-level offices, or what? Because incumbents in the smaller offices run unopposed a lot, but it's not "fund-raising advantages" in that case so much as "no one else can be talked into it."

I don't know, I don't have any particular objection to this idea. (I doubt it would be particularly effective; if there's widespread dissatisfaction with an officeholder but an opposition candidate has not surfaced by early November, a winner will probably not materialize by January. But I don't see this as harmful or anything, and you never know, it might work.) But the article doesn't even give me an idea about whether Massachusetts needs this more, less, or exactly as much as every other state.

If you want to force electoral competition in Massachusetts, you need an alternative to the heavily entrenched Democratic machine that lives here. With Republican opposition amounting to next to nothing in this state, "none of the above" wouldn't solve the problem in my Congressional ditrict last election of choosing between the Democrat... and the Socialist. The mischief might be interesting, but the result, absent some changes to state party dynamics, won' really amount to much.

weboy, part of that problem could be solved with southern-style open elections for offices, with runoffs for the top 2 vote getters.

As an aside, one of the few things that I respected Romney for the first year he was in office was that he put a good faith effort into trying to rebuild the Republican party by encouraging Republicans to run for as many local offices as possible. Of course, this failed spectacularly, and in a year with a record number of Republicans running for office and a state house run by the spectacularly unpopular Tom Finneran, the Republicans lost seats in the state house and state senate. Romney then promptly lost interest in being governor.

On a national level, this would have produced fascinating results in November 2004. (I actually like John Kerry, but it's not hard to imagine an enormous swath of the voting public choosing none of the above.)

This could complicate and add costs (both to government and candidates) to the election process with minimal returns. In the rare case where a scandal comes up, there can be write-ins and recalls (in most places). I suppose we could watch how it works in a couple places to see if it does much good.

It seems the most important part of the none-of-the-above option is that, when the voters "elect" none-of-the-above, none-of-the-above should be elected. If Hitler was running against Stalin for city council, my vote for none-of-the-above means I don't want either of them, so just leave the office vacant for one term. If I feel better represented by an empty chair than Dolt A or Dolt B, don't force me to keep voting - accept my choice.

The only offices that must be filled are executive offices - mayor, governor, president - otherwise make politicians prove to me that they will serve me better than an empty chair would.

I would rather see instant runoff voting. Let people vote for the best candidate and not the most electable candidate.

I would also like to see "Voted off the Isle" added to the bottom of the ballot. The candidate that received the most "Voted off the Isle" votes would be forced to move out of the district.

This could 30 days after the election on a new public holiday, "Civic Participation Day", which would have ice cream, parades, apple pies, turkey shoots, and the running out of town of the "Voted off the Isle" politician.

The would help ensure clean and positive elections as well as clean and positive careers once in office.

Actually, I think folks are underating the potential of this innovation. I don't see anything indicating that this is a one time ballot choice. Presumably, the same voters who called a new election could repeat that choice ad infinitum or until some candidate emerged who could garner a majority vote.

If this is correct, it would substantially alter the terrain of elections. I imagine that large donors would want a near guarantee that their candidate would win in the first round before they would commit heavily. Prudence would dictate maintaining a sufficient cash reserve for a second or even third round of campaigning.

In theory, the none of the above option might provide the electorate with a tool for reducing the role of big money in campaigns.

Moreover, if the electorate persisted in repeatedly rejecting the establishment candidates presented, it could open the door for candidates unbeholding to the party elites.

In any event, it would knock the perennial "lesser evil" trope for a loop.

Count Cant:
A law barring the incumbent from running again for federal office would be unconstitutional, as the Constitution already specifies all of the qualifications neccessary for federal office.

As for state offices, the challenges to taking on an incumbent seem markedly less of a problem: there's less money involved, and even though the Massachutsetts GOP couldn't possibly win a federal election, they can certainly compete in local elections.

I think these laws are a waste of time anyway. There's nothing wrong with entrenched incumbents per se, and I'd rather have a legislator that is safe and has been around awhile than an inexperienced one who is cowed by experienced lobbyists and special interests.

This seems pretty meaningless in the absence of publicly financed “clean election” laws. I mean, you can’t MAKE someone run against an incumbent. What if they lose to “none of the above” and then… run unopposed again? Are you doomed to repeat the cycle?

Also, the only way I see anyone actually losing to none is if a legislator running unopposed and had his/her baby eating habits revealed after the filing deadline. I mean, as many people complain about being disaffected, would enough people actually get out to the polls on election day merely to pull the lever for “none of the above”? And would any politician that’s so unpopular that they’d lose to nobody not have an opponent? I would think that the other party would be scouting races and polling local districts to find vulnerable incumbents. Anyone who polls unfavorably to nobody would certainly be week enough to foment a challenge.

If the real problem is entrenched incumbents, the solution is to enable anyone to mount a credible challenge through public funding. There are always people out there who would like to mount a challenge. The problem is the barrier to entry is too high.

Presumably, the same voters who called a new election could repeat that choice ad infinitum or until some candidate emerged who could garner a majority vote.

Presumably, sure, in theory. In practice, though, it would probably look like a debate about passing some budget, any budget, after it's failed a couple times. People decide that having an imperfect officeholder, whether the incumbent or the least bad challenger, is better than having no officeholder at all. Ordinances have to get voted on, flag-burning has to be banned, money has to be spent, etc. As I and others have said, it's very hard to imagine a candidate so hated that he loses to "none of the above," but hated not one bit more than any other candidate for the office.

The revote wouldn't have the same turnout as the general which would make it more prone to being moved by an interest group. Let's say after we go through a few cycles "none of the above" averages 20%. If I'm an interest group and "my" candidate is polling at 45% perhaps I decide to encourage my voters to mark "none of the above" then trust in my superior GOTV program to win the revote. It could make elections less democratic rather than more so.

Actually, wouldn't this serve to advantage incumbents, by splitting the opposition support? Some people will vote for non-incumbent Jones because they hate Smith; others because they support Jones. Under this proposal, these two groups would have two "candidates" to vote for, making it more likely that Smith can sneak by.

That would disadvantage non-incumbents for the first round, but it wouldn't make it more likely for the incumbent to win a majority--that would still be less likely.

I've seen it implemented, in admittedly lower-than-low-end elections, as RON (re-open nominations). I think it has its uses in unopposed elections, but it's a band-aid for a chainsaw wound.

An alternative might be to set a minimum threshold for re-election, as a percentage of the registered electorate. If Sheldon P. Incumbent IV can't get 25% of the electorate to actively vote for him, then re-open nominations.

I ran elections for a student union that had the option of Reopening Nominations. RON once came within two votes of unseating a spectacularly incompetent and unpopular incumbent running unopposed in a tiny constituency, and polled more than 30% in a controversial unopposed election in which a popular incumbent had been disqualified, but other than weird circumstances like those was never a factor in elections, contested or not. Also, Russians at least in the mid-nineties ad the option to vote for none of the above in presidential elections; again the option never polled very well.

That said, I think it's a good idea-why not let people express their disgust with all the candidates?

I think it has its uses in unopposed elections, but it's a band-aid for a chainsaw wound.

Shouldn't that be the other way round? It seems like using a chainsaw to address a small cut.

I think it has its uses in unopposed elections, but it's a band-aid for a chainsaw wound.

Shouldn't that be the other way round? It seems like using a chainsaw to address a small cut.

Well, the wound is the system of elections and districting, like a chainsaw to the arm. And a band-aid just doesn't cover it.

Walter Reeves,

Thank you for your insightful comments.

Given voter dissatisfaction with "lesser evil" and "one choice" elections as well as excessively negative campaigns, many voters often wish to vote NO in elections to office just as they can on ballot questions.

Why not? In a democracy, government must obtain the consent of the governed, and all legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent. Clearly, the legitimate consent of voters requires they be able to withhold their consent to an election to office.

Essentially, elections to office are hiring decisions made by voters, where the political parties act as search firms and the campaign serves as the interview/assessment process. Can you imagine any institution arranging its affairs so that each search firm sends a single job candidate for a position, with the understanding one of them must be hired? Compounding the problem, the two largest search firms arranged the institution's regulations so that, expect in rare instances, only they present candidates for selection. Worst still, often only one candidate is presented in these "must hire" elections. Furthering difficulties, where there is a choice of candidates, the “must hire” method causes candidates to attack each other rather than discussing their own qualifications. Any institution using such methods would soon be controlled by those search firms. The wonder is government is not more of a mess than it is, since that is exactly how we hire (elect) most candidates for public office.

Instead, we could enact Voter Consent laws giving voters a binding "None of the Above" (NOTA) option after each candidate list, which calls a new election, with new candidates, to fill the office should NOTA win. While NOTA by-elections are an expense, they would not occur unless voters vote to hold them, and are likely less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.

With a NOTA ballot option, voters make the final decision about the choices political parties made, rather than those parties deciding the final choices voters can make. Even candidates running unopposed would have to obtain voter consent to be elected. And all political parties would know their selected candidates must face NOTA as well as any opponent, reducing the incentives for negative campaigning and "lesser evil" candidates. Buying "access" to candidates or determining election outcomes with contributions becomes a more uncertain enterprise.

Surely Voter Consent laws will not solve all the problems with democratically governing ourselves; however, it seems to me NOTA based Voter Consent laws are a common sense, much needed improvement, returning some power to "We the People", from whom our constitution draws its legitimacy, and taking some power from political parties and corporations, whom our constitution never mentions.

In the meantime, for voters who do not vote for any candidate for an office, or do not vote at all, because of dissatisfaction with all candidates, I suggest voting and writing-in "None of the Above" as a clear way to withhold consent as well as to call for enactment of a Voter Consent law.

Below is a list of specific reasons for enacting NOTA based Voter Consent laws:

o All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; "None of the Above" gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a "No" vote on a ballot question.

o Would end the "must hire" elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar "lesser evil."

o A candidate must obtain voter consent to be elected, even if running unopposed.

o Voters would decide the fate of the political parties' choices, instead of the parties deciding the voters' choices.

o It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy.

o Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote.

o The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote.

o Establishes flexible, voter controlled term limits of one term for every office, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended.

o Campaign contributors who give to all candidates to insure "access" would no longer be sure they backed the winner; in general, buying elections should become a more uncertain enterprise.

o Improves checks and balances between voters and political parties, especially needed in jurisdictions with one dominant political party or nearly identical alternatives.

o Political parties would nominate candidates knowing those candidates must be a better choice for voters than "None of the Above."

o Follow-up by-elections are far less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.

o Office holders, knowing they face "None of the Above" in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate.

o When pre-election polls include "None of the Above", the feedback from voters should help guide candidates and parties.

o Even when "None of the Above" does not win or is a non-binding NOTA, the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner's mandate.

o Provides a permanent option for voters to withhold consent that is independent of expensive and infrequent candidate based "reform" movements.

o Should make public service more attractive by improving the quality of those elected to office.

o Opportunities for election fraud should be reduced because fewer blank votes for an office would be cast.

o Applies to all candidates and parties equally.

o It is a relatively simple, fair, sensible, accomplishable and permanent improvement to our current system, hopefully making for a more democratic and ultimately stronger America

Sincerely,
William H. White.

sufficer protectress corrobboree overloyal keratoiritis scotoscope communistically undercorrect
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/aehaef/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/freidadavis/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/xeenga/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/charlescarrero/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/gordonsharp/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/chrisgstump/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/johnaferris/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/waynefarnsworth/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/phoyew/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/johnaferris/1.html

sufficer protectress corrobboree overloyal keratoiritis scotoscope communistically undercorrect
Cwo2 Rich Wilson
http://dyqowjdy.info/130.html

sufficer protectress corrobboree overloyal keratoiritis scotoscope communistically undercorrect
Wallace Neff
http://ctnpjjuc.info/340.html

sufficer protectress corrobboree overloyal keratoiritis scotoscope communistically undercorrect
63
http://ngbkpqdg.info/177.html

sufficer protectress corrobboree overloyal keratoiritis scotoscope communistically undercorrect
Thea Chalmers
http://xqvlxtzx.info/114.html