Should ballots have a "none of the above" option?

Question

I wonder how much it would get punched. I know there have been some elections where I wish there was one.

Yeah but the write-in option scatters the disappointment with the system into a million different directions. A "none of the above" box would give some unity to those who don't like who is running. There's strength in numbers.

Answer 1

Yes, yes, yes. It would get punched A LOT. The existing political parties would never let it happen -- it scares them too much.

Answer 2

Would this lead to a new election, with no chosen candidate should the "none of the above" be the victor?
This has been the case these last two presidential elections, and I voted, and I would have preferred none of the above.
A write in is a waste of time in a national election, which I think some are fixed anyway.
The Nixon=McGovern election, and the Florida dimpled chad election, although there weren't any options except to oust the unending troublemakers.
We would then have a new election, with newly chosen candidates, if the none of the above option were rightfully implemented. This would cause the same dimpled chad overtime, it was 37 days then, it could be longer. It would be very interesting, and a much preferable solution to any candidate running in this national election, thank you.

Answer 3

Absolutely. And if "none of the above" wins, they should have another election. And this is why why it will never happen. Another is it would be an embarrassment to win, but get less votes than NOTA. I think it would be great, at least, to have an official elected and let him know he doesn't have a mandate to implement his hair-brain platform, maybe he should talk to the opposition a little.

Answer 4

That's why there's a write-in option. As a voter, you must do your duty in educating yourself and become active in the political process. Including a "none of the above" simply means that you are unwilling to delve deeply enough into figuring out who the best candidate is, even if it means writing in someone who doesn't even have a shot.

Answer 5

voting none of the above wouldn't accomplish anything. A second vote wouldn't happen and the person who gets the most votes would still win. That is why you should write in a vote if you are unhappy with the selection placed before you.

Answer 6

Yes. That option should be available. I'm pretty sure a good amount of votes would have that option punched.

Answer 7

There already is one. It's called the write-in ballot. I guess it's the government's way of saying not to complain if you don't have a solution. It forces you to vote for someone, whoever that may be. You could vote for yourself, but you have to have a solution.

Answer 8

Yeah, like the last presidential election.
Probably would've been put to good use.

Answer 9

yes