NOTA is an old political concept, embraced by the Libertarian Party. It means None of the Above, and our current OpenCdA poll asks what you think of the concept.
Especially in the modern age, when most elections are about the less of two evils, it makes sense to me to add the NOTA choice on every position on every ballot.
In the Libertarian Party, where I once served as State Vice-Chair, it’s required that NOTA be on every ballot. When NOTA wins an election, then the election is held over again but with all new candidates. That may sound crazy, but the Libertarians were able to pack the party offices with people despite NOTA being on every ballot.
Nationally, NOTA might sound like it could get screwy. Imagine trudging through two years of Presidential Election Hell and having NOTA win out over McCain and Obama. That would mean another two years of GW Bush! Then again, perhaps the NOTA option would motivate a shorter election cycle, and possibly a better field of candidates.
Your thoughts?
Dan, you didn’t give me a chance to vote NOTA on the right rail poll:) Electors have a choice of going to the polls or not gooing to the polls. If you are going to vote NOTA, why bother going?
Comment by Gary Ingram — October 23, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
I don’t like the NOTA choice because it does nothing constructive. You are throwing away a vote. Someone will win the seat in question. Even if you don’t like the choices, you could at least pick the person you think will do the least harm. If you don’t vote at all, or vote NOTA, you have absolutely no say in the outcome.
Comment by mary — October 23, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Dan, bad choice. Unfortunately, I’ve had the displeasure of holding my nose while voting for those who I barely agree with for too long. However there is a clear choice in this election and the concept of NOTA is totally unacceptable. No matter who wins this election our country is in serious trouble. The democrats, who have become more socialist-marxist with each passing year, along with their minions in the media have elevated class warfare and voter fraud to an art form. They have been successful in convincing people that they have a “right” to everything under the sun, fostering the entitlement mentality. And the repubs are just idly sitting by and watching it happen, worried more about getting reelected that our country. A rudderless ship with no one at the helm. The country is more to the right than the dems and the media would like us to believe. Look at all the special elections for the House of Representatives this past year. All were won by democrats posing as conservatives. Look at this puke minnick he doesn’t even have the guts to admit in any of his ads that he is a dem, now there’s a guy and a party with some real convictions!! If you didn’t know any better you’d look at minnick’s ads and swear he was a conservative. The repubs had better get their poop in a group, find a pair and get back on track.
Comment by Will Penny — October 24, 2008 @ 5:16 am
Rather than NOTA, I would love to get to rank my votes. I would like to be able to place my first vote for the third-party candidate whom I really agree with, the dem/pub that I can live with, and whoever else is on the ticket in the order I would like them to be considered. It would be nice to be able to vote my conscience as well as pragmatically.
I think that this can happen at all levels of voting and wouldn’t be terribly hard. NOTA might fit in, but I agree that it just isn’t terribly constructive.
Comment by kpomer — October 24, 2008 @ 8:21 am
kpomer,
That’s an interesting idea. How do you think your method would change the way campaigns are conducted? How do you think it would change news coverage of campaigns?
Comment by Bill — October 24, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Consider the NIC race where Mic Armon is running unopposed. Under my play, any politician, probably an incumbent, would never run unopposed. Say Armon gets 30% of the vote and NOTA gets 70%. That means there is a new election held, and Armon is out. Or do you still maintain that the current situation is better?
kpomer: I do like that type of weighted-voting system. It’s working elsewhere. I enjoy hearing the different ways that voting is done. The weighted-voting system I believe better represents the will of people.
Comment by Dan — October 24, 2008 @ 9:59 am
As unfortunate as the fact is, when you do NOTA or vote for a candidate that cannot possibly win, you are, in effect, giving the election to a candidate that you may not like. I believe in voting my conscience…even when it is the lesser of two evils (IMO). I would remind everybody that Ross Perot was actually responsible for Bill Clinton. Perot hated Bush so much, that he ran simply to “steal” the election from Bush. Ross Perot is a nasty, small minded little man who happens to have more money than anyone needs. But those who voted for
Perot were probably not happy with the Clinton win. They had no one but themselves to blame.
Comment by Diogenes — October 27, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
The polling has drawn to dead even, 12-12 as I write this comment. Any of you who are supportive of the NOTA option, do you have any comments to add?
Comment by Dan — October 28, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
If a recall petition in local elections must have a certain percentage of the total previous votes to be validated, wouldn’t voting NOTA make it more difficult to recall an elected official? Voting NOTA would increase the total number of voters in the election, so more voters would have to sign the recall petition than if fewer had voted in the specific contest.
Comment by Bill — October 28, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
As previously stated, I don’t like wasting my vote. In theory the idea above of an un-opposed candidate receiving fewer votes than the NOTA, calling for a new election is good. Except…if they ran un-opposed the first time, who would oppose them in a re-vote? Or, if the candidate is “out” (in Armons case a splendid idea) who would run? Unfortunately, the rules could get terribly convoluted to say the least.
While I agree with much of what Will Penny says, I would wish that his verbiage could have been on a slightly better level. We’re not in elementary school here. Just a thought.
Comment by Diogenes — October 28, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Recalling an elected official is difficult to begin with; think 18,000 signatures simply to recall an NIC Trustee versus 2500 to recall Mayor Bloem (round numbers). NOTA would increase the votes cast, sure. It would hone down unqualified people, perhaps inspiring some others to run. But in practice, I’ve got to say that NOTA rarely wins. In the many votes we took in the LP, I can recall only once NOTA won, and the ballot was quickly filled with alternatives.
Comment by Dan — October 28, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
I have been thinking about this because, heaven knows something needs to change. The same people just continue to be re-elected time after time. The theory of NOTA is interesting, however in practice, not practical. Elections cost money and continued re-elections could be costly. And, when candidates run un-opposed, generally it is because nobody is interested or in the case of CDA, the incumbants hold all the cards. Think of the mud slinging that the current infrastructure slings at candidates who dare to oppose them. I will admit, I wouldn’t open myself or my family for that treatment. Call me a coward, I agree. Mostly our current situation came about simply because of lazy voters…non voters is a better description. So, what would NOTA solve?
Comment by Diogenes — October 29, 2008 @ 10:19 am