None of the Above

- In Depth -

This article is part of an in-depth discussion of NOTA both by Voters For: None of the Above and others, including endorsements of NOTA as well as discussions of issues and concerns related to implementing NOTA. We believe that a free and open discussion of NOTA, both for and against, will provide the best foundation for NOTA as law.

Contact indepth@nota.org to suggest an item for inclusion in the "In Depth" section or as a link. We also plan to add a newsgroup for NOTA to allow for an unmediated exchange of ideas.

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.

For more information about the campaign in Washington state, send email to either Washington State Campaign for Democracy, or John Murray, 885-6972.