Voting for "None of the Above"

www.rusbasan.com

Bob Rusbasan
March 5, 2000

I guess it's that time again...

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote a (perhaps unnecessarily hostile) column criticizing people offering "solutions" to the problem of low voter turnout. My argument in a nutshell was that it isn't exactly clear that there is a problem, and, if there is, shepherding large groups of uniformed votes to the polls is not the solution.

Part of my bile in that column was directed at Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan), who had sponsored legislation to offer voters a "none of the above" (NOTA) choice. As appealing as this idea is to a lot of people, I fail to see what problem it actually solves.

So, of course, this idea is back in the news. Al Shugart, founder of Seagate Technology (they make hard drives), and his daughter Teri Erickson have spearheaded an effort to get "none of the above" on California ballots:

If voters are guaranteed a noticeable means to register their unhappiness with the choices they're being offered, more will turn up, Shugart claimed.

Sure they will.

I can certainly understand the appeal of this. You look at the choices offered you, and all of them fall short. Wouldn't it be great to be able to register your dissatisfaction with the whole bunch by checking "none of the above"? All the people that avoid the polls would now have someone -- or, rather, no one -- to vote for.

Churn that around in you mind for a few seconds. If your mental machinery is in good condition, it will quickly spit out an objection that goes something like this:

What a second! All of the people that can't work up the motivation to vote for anybody are now going to flock to the polls in droves to vote for...nobody?

According to Shugart and Erickson, yes, that is exactly what will happen. I have my doubts.

What Shugart, Erickson, and others want is a "none of the above" option that is actually tabulated. Shugart and Erickson say that if NOTA "wins", the actual person receiving the most votes will still take the office. Others have proposed more radical plans in which the election would be nullified and held again (and again and again and...) until an actual person wins it.

At the risk of breaking my implicit promise to be nicer in this column that I was in its predecessor, nullifying elections because NOTA won is just plain stupid. The unintended consequence of that would be to entrench incumbents even more, since they would presumably have to continue serving until a human being won an election for their office. Also, the make-up elections for small offices in which NOTA won would probably have shockingly low voter turnout, which is exactly what the NOTA proponents are trying to end.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no problem with the concept of people voting for nobody in a specific election on the ballot -- as long as these non-votes are considered to be an "I don't know" vote.

Consider this: During a presidential election year, the November ballot also lets you vote in many state and local elections. In a given state, say virtually all 5 million residents vote for a presidential candidate. As is unfortunately often the case, 4 million of them know nothing about the candidates for some obscure state office. So they do the right thing and vote for nobody. The 1 million residents that are well-informed cast their vote for the candidate they like best.

Candidate A in this election is a honest, trustworthy, ethical person that has proven his effectiveness in other elected positions. He is thrilled to defeat Candidate B with 65% of the vote (650,000 to 350,000). Proud of his success and vowing to do his best, he picks up the morning paper and sees this headline:

4 MILLION RESIDENTS PICK "NONE OF THE ABOVE" IN STATE ELECTION
Candidate A in Second Place with a Mere 650,000 Votes

Is this a valiant blow for democracy? I think not. Is this going to encourage good people to run for office? I think not.

Let's look at the second point a little more. Shugart and Erickson feel that the NOTA option will let people register their disgust with both major parties, and that will encourage the parties to offer us better candidates. Here are a few points to consider:

The major parties do their best to win each and every election. They do not have a race of super-candidates collecting dust in some closet somewhere. If they can find a candidate that will excite people and bring them to the polls in record numbers, they will run that candidate.
People that pay attention to politics generally do vote anyway. If the NOTA option actually brought "the rest of us" to the polls, candidates that were all style with no substance would do better.
As I suggested earlier, the prospect of an embarrassing loss to "none of the above" is probably going to discourage quality people from running.
Third party candidates will suffer. Traditionally, voters that truly dislike both major-party candidates have turned to the third parties. This has worked better than the NOTA option would, because it lets them express in which direction they'd like to see the major parties move. If the Green Party gets a lot of votes, one or both of the major parties will be more inclined to emphasize environmental issues. If NOTA gets a lot of votes, it is difficult to determine what that means.

If "none of the above" is offered as an electoral choice, it should certainly appear alongside an "I don't know" option (or simply the ability to not vote in specific elections). Otherwise, it may in fact send the wrong message ("the candidates are all terrible" instead of "millions wisely opted out of an election with which they were unfamiliar").

Better yet, just skip the NOTA option entirely. Voters wishing to protest something have much better options. If they wish to vote against corruption, they can vote for the least-corrupt candidate. If they are upset by the way money played a large part in the election, they can vote for the candidate that ran their campaign closest to what they consider the ideal. If they think the two mainstream parties are too similar, they can vote for a third-party that is emphasizing issues they would like to see addressed.

Voting for "none of the above" is a cheap cop-out. If you can't determine which candidate is closest to your own views -- not perfectly in alignment with your views, but closest to them -- then you should just stay home. And if people do that, we should quit making it out to be some kind of tragedy.