|
In 1995 Nevada had "None of the Above" on all of their ballots.
But sadly if "None of the Above" won the election the human crook with the next highest ballot count won the office.
Personally I think "None of the Above" should be on all the ballots and if "None of the Above" wins the office should go unfilled for the term of the office. I suspect over time people would realized that if they voted for "None of the Above" they would have a lot less government and many offices would go unfilled. 'None of the above' should be an option on ballot Freedom to reject candidates would boost votes' clout by Randy Camacho - Jul. 29, 2012 05:15 PM Have you ever found yourself on Election Day trying to decide between two candidates you were not crazy about? Maybe it was because both were more concerned with slinging mud at each other than thoughtfully discussing the issues you care about. Or perhaps you were familiar with one candidate, someone you disliked passionately, but had never heard of the other. That's because the political party the other candidate belonged to deemed the race unwinnable and put up anyone with a pulse to run. Such is the case today. Voters either have to pick between the lesser of two evils or an unknown commodity. It's like having to pick something to wear from a dirty basket of laundry. But, what if you had a third choice? Not a person but a choice. How about "none of the above"? How much clout would your vote have if you had the ability to say to both political parties, "Give me someone better!" when there are few good choices on the ballot? And what if "none of the above" were to win? It would require a special election that would force both parties to appeal to a broader electorate rather than the few lying on the extreme fringes of both political spectrums. Further, "none of the above" would not run those annoying campaign ads or say anything to get elected. It would be on the ballot simply as a fallback for voters when they want to exercise their right to use it. If we are going to have tax-subsidized state elections, why not present voters with "none of the above" as a choice in primary and general elections? It would certainly make every election more competitive. "None of the above" would also ensure no more politicians run unopposed. In fact, why limit ourselves? We should do the same in Washington. Consider the U.S. Senate race of 2010 in Connecticut where voters were presented with two stark but unattractive choices, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and businesswoman Linda McMahon. Blumenthal spoke often of his service in the Vietnam War and even insinuated he had experienced the "indignities" Vietnam vets suffered at the hands of antiwar protesters. It was all good except for one thing: Blumenthal never served in Vietnam. In fact, he put in for several deferments from 1965 to 1970 to avoid going to war. Linda McMahon made her fortune as a professional-wrestling promoter. Of course, the campaign season resembled a political version of "Wrestlemania" where voters felt as helpless as a pro-wrestling referee. How would the race have turned out had "none of the above" been on the ballot? This "none of the above" idea is not meant to get rid of the two-party system, but to enhance it by making it more vibrant. It would compel both parties to appeal to the broader electorate. That means the issues important to you would surface and become part of the political discourse. Perhaps then, we can find the elusive statesman we've been looking for. We seem to be yearning for something new and meaningful. When our Founding Fathers embarked on establishing our country, they were venturing into the unknown. Like our Founding Fathers, we must do the same without changing the foundation of our country, which is rooted in freedom of choice. Instead of continuing to be locked in political purgatory, it's time to shake things up. The message should be clear to both parties, "Put up your best, or else!" Randy Camacho is a political consultant and longtime educator. |