Time right for 'none of the above' on ballot

Like many of my friends, I struggled earlier this month over how to vote in the comptroller's race. Bizarre circumstances came together to produce the situation. A competent, well-financed and widely regarded as unbeatable incumbent was exposed in a devastating ethics scandal at the eleventh hour. The only real alternative was an unknown candidate offered as a sacrificial lamb. A stronger challenger would have solved the problem for a lot of voters, as would an earlier exposure of Alan Hevesi's misconduct.

But our conundrum also could have been avoided with a "none of the above" or NOTA option on the ballot.

Citing his wide victory margin, Hevesi has said that the voters have spoken with a clear voice to retain him. Not true. The voters may have preferred him to Christopher Callaghan, but with NOTA, the voters could have said - and almost certainly would have said - that what we most need to do is rethink the question, with two different candidates.

Most Americans do not currently have the option of voting NOTA; only in Nevada does it appear on the ballot, but it's a non-binding result. The candidate receiving the most votes wins regardless of how well NOTA does. A proposal is forthcoming in Massachusetts that would provide for a binding NOTA option, and should NOTA win, the candidates originally listed for that office would not be eligible to run in the ensuing election.

Some other Western nations have instituted NOTA, including Australia, which has mandatory voting. In Canada, citizens can appear at their appointed polling place and then reject the ballot entirely, an action which is officially recorded but counted in the same category as ballots disqualified because they are improperly filled out.

There are several attractions of NOTA for New York state. Dissatisfaction with Albany politics has reached record levels. Having the real, though distant, prospect of a NOTA outcome for other statewide and legislative races could provide a significant catalyst for meaningful reforms to a system resistant to change.

NOTA mightalso help to prevent nasty negative ads from reaching the levels that we saw in this election cycle. NOTA could provide a genuine short-term threat to both candidates, warning them as a pair to limit their personal attacks on each other, lest neither of them win. Currently, candidates find themselves in a perverse game of political chicken in which the best payoff is found in crashing the car.

NOTA could change some of these calculations, and the Hevesi dilemma further demonstrates that its time has come.

Grant Reeher is associate professor of political science at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is the author of "First Person Political: Legislative Life and the Meaning of Public Service," recently published by New York University Press. To contribute to "Rethinking Albany," contact assistant regional editor Ralph Perkins at 470-2163 or e-mail him at rperkins@syracuse.com.