Policy Insights Number 615, September 1994
Free Congress Research and Education Foundation,
Inc.
by Tony Miller, Acting Secretary of State of California
The career politicians hate it, so it must be a good idea. It provides a very powerful option for voters who feel they are faced not with voting for someone they support but with choosing the least objectionable of the candidates listed on the ballot. It provides voters the opportunity to send a very clear message to incumbents and challengers alike that they are not satisfied with the status quo and demand change. It's a simple but effective option; it's "None of the Above."
Voter participation rates in California and elsewhere have been plummeting as voter confidence in the government and the political process erodes. Governments rocked by scandal, multimillion dollar campaigns fueled by special interest money, campaigns in which incumbents' fund-raising advantage overwhelms challengers, campaigns that degenerate into nothing more than mudslinging, name-calling matches---all leave voters dazed and uncaring. Something has to be done or this dizzying spiral of cash, corruption and craziness will continue to drive participation rates to ever more dangerous lows. Obviously, there is no simple solution, but there is one simple step we can take on the road to finding a solution and that is to enact "None of the Above."
In the words of that consummate California politician Jesse Unruh, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." Incumbents have it and can easily get more. Challengers without deep pockets of their own are often so under-funded that they provide little or no competition, leaving incumbents virtually unopposed. The inability to raise huge sums of money to match incumbent war chest funds sometimes drives potentially excellent candidates from the arena altogether. Minor party candidates, ignored by the media and contributors alike, have little hope of competing in any real way to provide voters with a clear alternative to their better known, vastly better-funded opponents.
From city council races to the governor's office and beyond, the cost of campaigning continues to escalate. In 1984 in the small central California community of Davis, a candidate for city council spent over $10,000, a first in the city's history and far more than any previous candidate had spent. Ten years later, candidates with less than $10,000 scarcely need apply. Congressional races that a decade ago saw spending in the tens of thousands of dollars now require hundreds of thousands; in 1990, 18 House races in 11 states topped $1 million. The 1990 California governor's race broke the $10 million mark, and it is obvious that spending in the 1994 race will far exceed that.
Special interest money is a particularly pernicious element in the political mix. It has an enormous influence on campaigns, helping incumbents stay in office election after election. Common Cause reports that in the 1992 congressional election cycle, 349 incumbent members of the House of Representatives received nearly ten times more in contributions from political action committees than did their opponents. Only 24 of those opponents were successful in their challenges; 325 or 93% of the incumbents were returned to office, some owing more than half of their fund-raising success to special interests. Similar results were reported for 1988 and 1990, when incumbents raised a whopping 13 times more from PACs than their opponents did.
The public views special interest money, which indeed has legitimate uses, with increasing suspicion and contempt. Scandal after scandal in federal, state and local offices has lent credence to the widely held belief that all politicians are corrupt or, at the very least, corruptible if the money's good enough. California's infamous "Shrimpscam," in which FBI agents posing as officials of a shrimp fishery sought special legislation in return for monetary consideration, resulted in the conviction of five members or former members of the State Legislature and left the reputations of several others darkened by clouds of unconfirmed suspicion. It helped to confirm the public impression that the Legislature was for sale to the highest bidder.
And what does all this money buy? It buys air time, newspaper ads, brochures left on doorsteps or delivered through the mail. Too often it produces a dizzying barrage of ads touting not the candidate's sterling character and qualifications but the alleged villainy and/or incompetence of the opponents. Insinuation, innuendo, half-truth and outright untruth assault voters as campaign after campaign abandons public debate on the issues to descend into a contest to see who can paint the ugliest picture of the other.
Lost in all the fund-raising and mud-slinging frenzy is the "average voter." As candidates rely more and more on major contributors and PACs, these voters feel more and more distanced from the decision-making process. They increasingly feel that the decisions have already been made by the big money interests before candidates' names even appear on the ballot and that whoever is elected is so beholden to those interests that the voice of "the little guy" will not be heard. As campaigns descend into the political gutter, many voters choose not to vote rather than choose among candidates they dislike.
There is a way to put the average voter firmly back in the picture---"None of the Above." It doesn't need money to get to the ballot, nor does it need money to run a high-profile campaign of billboards, splashy ad campaigns and 30-second bites to be understood. It is clear and simple and powerful. A victory for "None of the Above" would send a very strong message to officeholders, candidates and campaigners that they just don't get it---that it's time for a change, time to listen to the voters, not the consultants; time to consider the public interest, not their own political interests; time to grow up and pay attention.
This is not a new idea. Nevada has had a non-binding version on its ballot for nearly two decades with no discernible detriment to the state's political process; indeed, it has prevailed only four times. Californians already essentially have this choice when they vote for appellate court justices. Political reformers and commentators have been talking about it for decades. But it's an idea---feared by politicians, cheered by voters---whose time has come.
The arguments in favor of the "None of the Above" option are many. Giving people another choice would give them a reason to go to the polls even though they don't like any of the candidates listed for an office on the ballot. People turned off would still turn out to register their protest. Voter participation would increase. Giving people the "None of the Above" choice would discourage the mudslinging that characterizes so many campaigns, since voters easily could, and would, opt for the "plague on both your houses" approach. Tired of entrenched incumbents unbeatable because of the mighty war chests and high name identification that scare off credible opponents, voters could cast their vote for "None of the Above" and force a new election with a completely new slate of candidates. At the very least, fear of losing to "None of the Above" would make incumbents more responsive to voters' concerns.
To make the greatest impact, "None of the Above" must be binding. It would be printed at the end of the list of candidates for each partisan and non-partisan office. If, when the vote tally is complete, "None of the Above" were the winner in any race, that office would be declared vacant and a new election would be called to fill it. No candidate who ran and lost to "None of the Above" in the first election would be eligible to run in the subsequent election, nor would "None of the Above" again be listed on the ballot. Voters would get only one chance to reject all candidates in any race. At the follow-up election they would be offered a completely new slate of candidates, one of whom they must choose to represent them for the term of the office.
Opponents point to possible costs. Clearly, if "None of the Above" wins, there would be the cost of an additional election, although the Nevada experience indicates that the need to hold another election would be rare. Were the need to occur, however, it would be money well spent to give the people a real choice among candidates on the ballot and to make them feel that their participation in the process is important because it really makes a difference.
Opponents also argue that giving voters an easy out will discourage them from focusing on candidates who are on the ballot, but they are selling the voters short. Voters are discriminating. They will look at the candidates and will in all likelihood choose among them, but they shouldn't have to hold their noses to do so. When "None of the Above" is the only logical or acceptable choice, voters should have the option to exercise that choice.
Is "None of the Above" a panacea to increasing participation, coding negative campaigning and making incumbents more responsive? Of course not, but it may be a start.