New Hampshire House bill would let you vote for 'none of the above'

[WilliamPitt]

CONCORD -- How many times have you been in a voting booth, staring at the ballot in front of you, and, unimpressed with the choices, wished you could vote for "none of the above?"

Seven-term state Rep. Chuck Weed, a Keene Democrat, would like to give you that choice.

He's filed a bill that would add "none of the above" to New Hampshire ballots and if "NOTA," as it's called, wins, then a new election would be held.

(snip)

Weed said after the hearing he believes the "none of the above" option would lead to cleaner and more positive elections, free of the constant attacks that Granite Staters have become so accustomed to. After all, he said, no candidate wants to suffer the ultimate embarrassment of being beaten by, literally, no one.

The rest: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140116/NEWS06/140119451/-1/news

[frazzled]

1. Holding elections is expensive

In the case where "none of the above wins"—which could be quite often in a state like New Hampshire, I should think—it could get very expensive to hold new elections. Would the new elections require new filings for candidates, new primaries? Months of campaigning again? In the meantime, do the people have any representation? I see too many problems with this, as it stands.

I used to do a lot of canvassing in New Hampshire ... door to door, one on ones with people. I can't tell you how many ridiculous positions I found myself in. Typical scenario:

Voter: I'm not going to vote; no politician will solve the problems I'm interested in.
Me: May I ask what your most important issue is?
Voter: My wife left me and she doesn't let me see our kid often enough. (Alternate answer: My kid listens to rap music and is doing terribly in school)

These are real answers I encountered, not made up, and they were by no means the rare oddity. I mean, this is how some people think about politics (or don't think). I'd rather they stayed home and didn't vote rather than going to vote and choosing "none of the above," forcing the state to spend money and rational voters to spend time on re-running an election to which those same voters will not want to vote for anyone again.

Note: I tried to be very kind, patient, and respectful with these people, and often tried to get them to see how their involvement in the political system (or my candidate) might actually help their situation. I tried to bring them out of the personal and to see how societal issues were affecting schools/courts/education, etc. It was a pretty thankless task, however.

[El_Johns]

8. Maybe it would force them to run better candidates. If they can't field candidates people

prefer to "no one," I say let no one win, and damn the expense.

Having shitty legislators is a sight more expensive.

[Riftaxe]

2. This would be awesome

Considering here in NH, I will have the likely option of voting for the current air headed idiot in office or a republican in the next Governer's race, none of the above would presumably be an outstanding option.

There is no way in hell I will cast another vote for Hassan the halfwit...if only we could get Lynch back.

[1000words]

3. Big fan of this idea!

Boy, I sure hope it passes and other states start adopting the same.

Thanks for posting ... Rec.

[okaawhatever]

4. Is there a requirement that someone vote for each office on the ballot? If not, then by not voting

on a particular race on the ballot you've accomplished the same thing. A little political theater, maybe?

[El_Johns]

9. No, you haven't. By not voting you just limit the pool from which A or B are selected. By voting

for "none of the above" you are voting for C, & thus creating a situation where C can win over A and B.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Good idea! Let the people express their displeasure with "politics as usual". K&R

[Jim Lane]

6. Nevada has had this for years.

See the Wikipedia article about the Nevada law.

In Nevada, it's purely a protest vote. The highest-ranking "real" candidate wins, even if the "None of These Candidates" line got the most votes (as has happened!).

When it is used in other countries, the treatment varies, as is explained in the more general Wikipedia article:

When None of the Above is listed on a ballot, there is the possibility of NOTA receiving a majority or plurality of the vote, and so "winning" the election. In such a case, a variety of formal procedures may be invoked, including having the office remain vacant, having the office filled by appointment, re-opening nominations or holding another election (in a body operating under parliamentary procedure), or it may have no effect whatsoever, as in the state of Nevada, where the next highest total wins regardless.

[Recursion]

7. Meh. It's a plank of the Libertarian platform, which gives me pause

It also seems to fall into the "if we just elected people with more common sense everything would get better" fallacy.

[JI7]

10. seems lazy to me