Tweet
(photo: Berto Garcia / flickr)
In Nevada you will still be able to go to the polls and vote for no one. The state is unique in that for decades it has given voters the option of “none of the above” on the ballot and it will remain that way for at least this upcoming election. Republicans had launched a lawsuit to try to get “none of the above” removed from the ballot but thanks to a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals it will remain on the ballot this November. From the Las Vegas Sun:
Nevada voters will have the option in the upcoming election to choose “none of the above” in the close presidential contest between President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney.
A panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals issued a stay Wednesday of a ruling by federal District Judge Robert Jones that would have kept the none option off the ballot.
The stay is a setback for Republican leaders who had hoped that those who were dissatisfied with both candidates would choose Romney if forced to make a choice.
While the presence of this option on the ballot would only make a difference in an extremely close election, in reality it is good news for President Obama and bad news for Mitt Romney. With national polling so close a few thousand votes in a single swing state could make the difference.
It is believed that the option is used mainly by voters who are unhappy with the incumbent as a way to express their displeasure with the incumbent without actually helping the opposition. This dynamic comes into play when you have an incumbent with a disappointing record and a challenger that has very bad favorability ratings. That just happens to be a near perfect description of the Presidential race this year.
14 Comments
What if “None of the Above” wins?
That might be more than a little embarassing, no?
None of the Above is the best option for this election, well, at least the presidential one.
Agreed. I should use MoveOn referendum petition ideas for “None of the Above” drive.
Why not vote for a 3rd party? Voting NOTA doesn’t further the values and agenda you have. There might be a 3rd party candidate who does. To me, that sends a clearer message about what it is you expect from your candidate than a NOTA vote.
I haz a confuze. If NOTA wins in Nevada, would that mean their delegates to the Electoral College will not participate in the final count of delegates used to decide the winner in November? Or is this totally meaningless? Anybody know? (So many questions, no?)
I predict the NONE will win by a landslide.
The best antidote to the duopoly that would instigate the creation of more parties, end the chokehold of the dempublicans and elevate the status of the current mix of ’3rd’ parties & answering the ?s of other commenters; hold the election again with new candidates, of course
I’ll bet “none of the above” would win lots of elections if it meant a do-over with new candidates.
Also inspire the abolition of the electoral college system, perhaps direct us to a parlimentary system, end the lock the parties have on the debates and increase voter turnout, while also calling into question the soft totalitarianism of corporate personhood that equates money with freedom of speech
Luck of the draw, didn’t get Jay Bybee, the guy that approved torture memos for G.W. Bush to get judgeship on the 9th.
Casting a NOTA vote would increase the total number of votes cast, which in turn would decrease the percentage of the total cast for each candidate.
So in a two candidate race you could conceivably have both of them earning under 50%.
Anyone know more about NOTA’s track record in NV? Do many people there get PO’d enough to vote that way? Maybe NOTA is a well deserved insult to the system.
I don’t think the analysis matches reality. At this point, neither Rocky Anderson nor Jill Stein have ballot access in Nevada. At the same time, Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode are both on the ballot. That creates a dynamic where disaffected conservatives can vote for either the Libertarian or Constitution party candidates as an alternative while the liberal folks are left without an alternative candidate on the ballot to vote for if they don’t like Obama. In that circumstance, it would be expected that “none of the above” would be more of a catch-all for liberals than conservatives.
Interestingly, having such an option really helps with the situation of “undervotes”. Many states will exclude ballots that didn’t select a candidate for the national race from the first round of counting and only look at them in the case of a recount. This allows the voter to remove exploitable ambiguity and explicit assert that they aren’t voting for any of the options in a particular category. It seems like a benefit to clarity. It also might help downticket races somewhat knowing that liberals not wanting to vote for Obama (and lacking other options) won’t have their votes suppressed for the other races.
Maybe someday, there will be a genuine three way race in this country. I certainly hope so.
Until then, though, the point of a third party vote is to get one side or the other worried.
I wonder who a “nobody” vote worries? My guess is no one.
I’ve desperately been trying to convince my friends on the left to please, please consider voting for Gary Johnson. I remind them they’re voting for a candidate, not a party, and ask them to research his positions on civil liberties, the drug war, marriage freedom, etc… Basically, everything but his economic policies.
And even if they are lukewarm on Johnson, my last-ditch pitch is, Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President who uses polysyllabic words (hey, like that one!) when he speaks in public?
Oddly, I’ve been getting better response from my hardcore Proggy friends than the many disillusioned Dems I know. The Greens have left the left in the lurch for two election cycles now: Roseanne Barr? They’re kidding, right?
Nope, no more than in ’08 when they put Cynthia McKinney on the ballot. McKinney proved you don’t need to be to the right to subscribe to Tinfoil Hat Monthly. My Green friends are already used to voting third-party, and while the Libertarian Party is a polar opposite of the Greens, Johnson’s stated positions (on everything but economics) make a pretty convincing argument.
My Democratic friends seem to be purposely living out the stereotype of Dems as mealy-mouthed wusses. They are, nearly to a person, thoroughly disgusted with Obama’s performance over the last 3½ years… But refuse to not vote for him again. I get the usual snivel of, “You’re just throwing your vote away by voting third-party!” Yeah, wah wah boo-fucking-hoo. I’ll go to bed on November 6th knowing I voted for a candidate I liked, not one I didn’t hate quite as much as The Other Guy.