Nevada Senate race may hinge on vote for 'none of these candidates'

[depakid]

Long before the tea-party movement, Nevada lawmakers gave disgruntled and uninterested voters a way to tell politicians to buzz off. You don't like the choices? Vote for "none of these candidates."

The turnout for "none" this year could be a decisive factor in whether Democratic Sen. Harry Reid returns to power as majority leader. The race between him and Republican Sharron Angle is so close, and the disdain for both candidates so high, that the victor likely will triumph by a razor-thin margin. That's where "none" comes into play.

Reid, who has the most to lose in an anti-incumbent year, has to hope a significant number of voters will vent their anger by voting "none," instead of for Angle. His campaign has tried vigorously to drive up negative impressions of Angle, a tea-party conservative, by running advertisements that portray her positions as loony or dangerous. Angle's camp says Reid's tactics will backfire and perhaps cause some of his voters to turn to a third-party candidate or "none."

Recent polls show "much of the electorate has made the decision not to vote for Harry Reid, but they haven't decided where their vote should go," GOP strategist Ryan Erwin said. With eight candidates and "none" on the ballot, Erwin said, Reid or Angle probably could eke out a victory with as little as 42 percent of the vote. While several states have toyed with adding "none" to their ballots, Nevada is the sole state gutsy — or foolish — enough to endure the consequences.

The Legislature approved the "none of the above" option in 1975 to give disgusted voters a voice, former Nevada lawmaker Don Mello said. "The timing was ripe because of everything with Richard Nixon. People were very upset. I started to wonder if people would vote if they could vote 'no.' "

Mello's bill placed "none" on ballots for the presidency and statewide races, including Senate, the state's six constitutional offices and the Nevada Supreme Court. (State legislative seats had to be omitted to win enough votes, Mello said.) Should "none" outpoll everyone else, the candidate with the second-most votes wins.

"None" won House primaries in 1976 and in 1978, the same year it won the GOP secretary-of-state primary. It also claimed victory in the 1986 Democratic primary for state treasurer. Although "none" didn't swell voter turnout, as some backers had hoped, it developed a loyal constituency.

More: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012998144_nevadanone26.html

* In 1998, when Reid defeated John Ensign by 428 votes, more than 8,100 were cast for "none."

[PoliticAverse]

1. A sham ?

"Should "none" outpoll everyone else, the candidate with the second-most votes wins."

So it's really a sham "none of the above".

[depakid]

2. That's certainly a valid criticism

I'd actually like to see "none of the above" as a real choice that meant back to the polls with new candidates, but that would be expensive.

An even better solution would be preferential voting (IRV) but neither of the major parties would ever let that happen statewide.

[BzaDem]

3. +1 for IRV

[depakid]

4. That's the only thing that kept the Labor government in power

Without the preferences from other parties, we'd have a right wing PM who's earned the moniker: the Mad Monk.

What's also interesting is that it creates a situation where the two largest parties have to be responsive to all elements and constituencies in the electorates.

Imagine for instance Republicans trying to outflank Democrats on the left by promising and even more generous paid parental leave program?