In Sarasota, Fl there is a lawsuit between politicians claiming they were victims of an undervote because people didn't vote for them on the ballot. It hasn't occurred to them that maybe both candidates sucked. They just blame the vote on the machine. If we had the extra choice of neither of them - could that change politics?
2006-12-21 03:56:16 · 7 answers · asked by John Galt 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
In Sarasota, Fl there is a lawsuit between politicians claiming they were victims of an undervote because people didn't vote for them on the ballot. It hasn't occurred to them that maybe both candidates sucked. They just blame the vote on the machine. If we had the extra choice of neither of them - could that change politics? Write ins don't work with electronic voting. Is the lesser of evils good enough?
2006-12-21 05:29:41 · update #1
Get real.
When "none of the above" (NOTA) is on the ballot, it rarely gets up to 5% of the vote. Nevada has a state law that puts it on the ballot for certain offices. You can see the results below. There is, of course, an organization striving to require this (also see below).
Realistically, NOTA would have very little effect since dissatisfaction will tend to be balanced between dissatisfied people who would have voted Dem and those who would have voted Rep. Third party candidates have a much greater effect since they tend to pull from only one side. For example, it could be argued that if Ralph Nader had not been on the ballot in 2000, Dubya would have lost to Gore because Nader siphoned off Gore voters much more than Bush voters.
2006-12-21 06:58:50 · answer #1 · answered by Dave P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would bring down democracy. The reason people don't vote is almost entirely out of apathy with the political system - NOT apathy for the voting system. For most people it really isn't that much effort to spend a couple of hours maximum going to the polling station to choose your leaders for the next few years. It's just almost everyone is so cynnical about politicians that they know it makes absolutely no difference who they vote for. I'd say that "none of the above" would certainly win regional elections, possibly even the whole thing, meaning there would certainly be no mandate for any party - and perhaps not even any leader at all, depending on the type of democracy each country has.
2006-12-21 04:02:12 · answer #2 · answered by Mordent 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I believe that many times, the vote would come out to be "none of the above". Take George W. I think he is a decent President, but there are a lot more qualified people out there. Choosing between him and Kerry, or him and Gore was easy.
However, given the choice, I would have voted none of the above, and gotten a second chance at a good person running.
2006-12-21 03:58:13 · answer #3 · answered by i hate hippies but love my Jesus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of the above is implied on all ballots. You do not have to vote in any category if there is nobody running you want. It doesn't matter if none of the above is implied or implicit. The politicians just want an excuse for losing other than the fact that most politicians are scum sucking worms that no normal person would want in their living room much less in public office.
2006-12-21 04:09:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's the point? We have a representative gov't, so the offices need to be filled by somebody. Ever hear of "the lesser of two evils?" The system ain't perfect, but what your suggesting isn't practical (or funny).
2006-12-21 04:13:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If "none" were a legitimate choice on ballots, I think we'd see many thousands of public offices completely empty.
2006-12-21 03:58:50 · answer #6 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's already there. It's called a "write-in".
2006-12-21 05:25:17 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋