A federal appeals court decided this week to allow Nevada's controversial "None of the Above" voting option to stand as the printing of the state's November ballots proceeds. Nevada has had that option since 1976. Although the ballot item can't technically win an election, it does let the candidates who do win know the people don't really like them. The first federal judge tried to delay his decision until the ballots had already gone to the printer. The appeals judge struck down the lower court's decision to remove, and also chastised the judge for dragging his feet.
In 1998, Senate Leader Harry Reid beat the Republican challenger by just 428 votes. "None of the Above" got 8,000 votes. The provision can't force a new election, however.
Still, Nevada says the ballot item boosts voter turnout, bringing out disgruntled people who would otherwise simply not have voted.
The Mitt Romney camp was reportedly disappointed with the decision because they felt people who don't like either candidate might vote for him in larger numbers than for President Obama.
---------
In President Clinton's speech last night to the Democratic Convention in Charlotte - the best speech of his life, many say - he made a better case for Barack Obama's reelection than Obama himself has ever made. Some say the President may be reelected in November because of Clinton's brilliant explaining of the issues last night. Michelle Obama's perfect speech on Tuesday (in her unique "purposeful stuttering" style) set the stage though, emotionally. The President will speak tonight, accepting his party's nomination (one assumes) and closing the convention.
I'm all for "None of the above" but give it some teeth. If it wins, throw out both candidates and force 'em to start over.
ReplyDeleteI think we should make the winner get a majority. Of the voters eligible to register to vote. :) And then just pay him half. And only let him serve for 4 months. And even so, waterboard him every Saturday night.
DeletePoliticians suck.
What if you made a penalty for people who lose spectacularly vs. none of the above and put them down for the good of humanity? That's not a serious suggestion, but I've thought before about randomly thinning the lawyer herd that way, if only to reduce the numbers (and make people think long and hard before becoming a bloodsucker...I mean, lawyer).
DeleteI'm against waterboarding for anyone but rapists. I'm actually against waterboarding altogether, but, for rapists, I'd make an exception.
So you are willing to put lawyers down, but not waterboard them? Interesting. :) But, remember, if you get rid of all the lawyers, there will only be good hardworking honest people left in congress. Then what? Oh, wait...
DeleteI am changing my name to "None of the Above", in preparation for my move to America.
ReplyDeleteHail your new overlord!
(Your taxes will go toward buying me regular, medically required, real ale.)
No ale here. :)
DeleteThere will be.
Delete'None of the Above' would be ideal for me!
ReplyDeleteYou already vote that way now. :)
DeleteNone of the above, yes I would vote for him/her. Sometimes an empty chair would be better than those that fill them now.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you are old enough to vote yet. Do women even have the vote in Ohio? :)
DeleteDidn't Robin Williams win an election on account of this a few years back?
ReplyDeleteI don't remember. It would serve them right. I hear YOU are running for office. Or was the Scot lying again?
DeleteI agree with Sue, I can just imagine how wonderful an empty chair would be in South Africa because when Jacob Zuma our President travels anywhere he takes up to 300 people with him, what a waste!
ReplyDelete300? Oh, counting all his wives and concubines. :)
DeleteI shouldn't make fun, but big Jake is funny. In a sad sort of way.
I guess when a chair would be in charge of the White House the 'liberate all chairs from their suppressors' movement would have their finest hour.
ReplyDeleteAn "empty" chair, Rob.
Delete