Binding None-Of-The-Above
Today, when a voter does not like the candidates in a particular
race, she can hold her nose and vote for the lesser of two evils,
abstain in that race, or refuse to vote altogether. An increasing
and alarming number of Americans are staying home. Despite the
most aggressive and accessible voter registration programs in
our nation's history, fewer and fewer eligible Americans are participating
in our elections.
Binding None of the Above (NOTA) provides a way for voters to
register a protest vote on election day. Binding NOTA means that
if "None of the Above" wins a plurality---more votes
than any other candidate---a special election is called with new
candidates. The candidates beaten by "None of the Above"
cannot appear on the ballot in the subsequent special election(s).
Binding NOTA provides a way to tally an explicit protest vote.
It gives citizens a veto and a real choice. They no longer are
stuck having to select the lesser of two evils. They do not have
to pick from a slate of the unworthy, the unknown, and the unopposed.
They can veto all the candidates presented to them and demand
a new election with better candidates.
It is a simple idea that applies to all elections, from the smallest
local voting district all the way up through state and federal
elections. For example, if NOTA had won in the 1996 presidential
election in Washington State, a new special election would have
been called---without Bill Clinton and Bob Dole on the ballot.
It is conceivable that Washington's nine electors would have been
pledged to neither Clinton nor Dole, but to a different candidate.
Politicians, knowing that the electorate can register a NOTA vote,
will be more responsive to their constituents. They will also
be less likely to engage in negative campaign tactics, such as
name-calling, innuendo, character assassination, and dirty tricks.
An angry and alienated electorate with the ability to vote NOTA
can remove both candidates from the running. With NOTA, candidates
would have to give the voters a reason to vote for them,
not just against the other side. Even unopposed candidates could
lose if the voters deem them unworthy. NOTA would give party leaders
an incentive to endorse candidates based on merit.
NOTA would have given voters a valid protest vote in some recent
notable elections. Oregon Republicans in the 1996 primary could
have vetoed the unopposed candidate Rep. Wes Cooley, after allegations
he misled people about his military record and the date of his
marriage. Illinois voters in 1994 would not have had to choose
between Gus Savage, who "did not hesitate to play the race
card," and Rep. Mel Reynolds, who was elected and later convicted
after charges of obstructing justice were made public against
him. Louisiana voters in 1991 could have rejected both former
KKK leader David Duke and the ethically-challenged Edwin Edwards
(in a race dubbed "the wizard versus the lizard"). NOTA
gives voters an additional tool when late-breaking information
discloses that the candidates are not worthy to hold office.
Gary Hoover of the Free Congress Foundation wrote, "Why should
citizens only be able to vote 'yes' for someone or abstain? In
the act of voting, a citizen not only chooses someone to govern,
but also gives consent to be governed. Sometimes a voter may want
to withhold consent." The political scientist John J. Pitney,
Jr. echoed this view. "NOTA would secure the right to say
no. If free government is really based on the consent of the governed,
it follows that the people should have a clear way of withholding
consent from the unworthy, the unknown, or the unopposed."
A non-binding NOTA measure has been in effect in Nevada since
1976, where in 20 years NOTA has won a plurality just four times.
Don Mello, the Nevada legislator who authored the bill, noted
its positive impact on Nevada politics. It is, he said, "one
way for the people to tell the power structure they are not happy.
If two rascals are running for the same office, and neither belongs
there, why would you want to vote for either one? If you don't
vote at all, your vote is not tallied." A vote for NOTA,
on the other hand, is recorded.
Given the rare number of times NOTA won a plurality of votes in
the last two decades, the cost of the required additional elections
will likely be small to the taxpayers. And when NOTA does win,
the extra election is a small price to pay to prevent the election
of unscrupulous and unqualified candidates. It is a good investment
in democracy that gives the people a real choice and lets them
know their votes are important.
NOTA is a low-risk, tested, constitutional measure that has broad
public support, garnering endorsements from such diverse organizations
as the Wall Street Journal, the Manchester (NH) Union Leader,
the Boston Globe, Ralph Nader, and many good government groups.
It will not by itself solve the problems of low voter turnout,
negative campaigning, and the dominance of campaign financing
by special interest groups, but it is a good start.
Wall Street Journal endorses None of the Above
Ralph Nader essay: NOTA is proper and long overdue
1995 NOTA Bill introduced in California (full text)
1995-6 NOTA Bill introduced in Ohio (full text)
1996 NOTA Bill introduced in Pennsylvania (full text)
1991 NOTA Bill introduced in Wyoming (full text)
