NationStates Jolt Archive

Not long ago a issue came up for my nation about adding a "None of the above" option to the ballet, I allowed it. Just today, I was informed that a men who had been in the running for county commissioner recently and who also happened to seriously injure a pedestrian by running him over while driving drunk, was just sentenced to... get this: community service and his license revoked for ONE month. Plus, because this was his first DUI his record will be wiped clean in a year. In contrast to this, most first timer’s sentenced for DUI get about three weeks in jail, a year driver’s license suspension, and probation. The judge responsible for this sentence is fairly widely known as a criminal for past rulings, and most people to make the accusation are dead serious. Even so, he has enjoyed many consecutive terms simply because around here, no one ever really runs against judges. When I heard about this, the "None of the above" option from Nation States came to my mind. I ran it past the person who told me about this and she liked the idea. Personally I could see such an option being infinitely useful for national and especially local politics because honestly, my town is saturated by assholes enjoying political careers that don't seem to end. A good example would be our state rep that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to win his reelection against someone that spend well under ten. Even better is the school board where you always see a crowd of people duking it out and spending thousands of dollars for a position that doesn't pay ANYTHING.

I really can't count how many people I know who claimed to have voted for the "lesser of two evils" in the presidential election (who ever that may be)
. In such a case, a “None of the Above” option would have served perfectly. If such an option got a majority then we could go back to the primaries and get some new, hopefully better, candidates. For that matter, the primaries would also benefit from such a option.

The most obvious repercussion of such an option would be delay; the most obvious benefit would be less asshats in politics. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt such an option will ever exist in America or elsewhere. But for a question, if such an option were to be considered, would you support it? Why or why not? Would it make too much chaos every couple years? General thoughts?

None of the Above sounds good to me.

Then again somebody might change their name to that. :p

None of the Above sounds good to me.

Then again somebody might change their name to that. :p

Such a smartass deserves to win.

None of the Above sounds good to me.

Then again somebody might change their name to that. :p

Didn't a fellow in Louisiana actually do that a few years back?

Don't we already have something where we can write-in a name? That kinda is none of the above already.

Don't we already have something where we can write-in a name? That kinda is none of the above already.

Yes, but let's say that in an election where 6 million people vote.

2 million vote for Joe

1 million vote for Bob

3 million vote for various people who's names they wrote in.

In this situation Joe wins because despite 3 million people voting for neither Joe or Bob Joe got the most votes, the write in canidates were split between something like 2.5 million diferent people becasue many people either voted for themselves or for someone else few people even know about. In a "none of the above" system where the votes were

2 Million for Joe

1 Million for Bob

3 Million for None of the above

Instead of electing Joe (who in both situtations people CLEARLY do not want in office) we would go find someone the people can agree on.

Yes, but let's say that in an election where 6 million people vote.

2 million vote for Joe

1 million vote for Bob

3 million vote for various people who's names they wrote in.

In this situation Joe wins because despite 3 million people voting for neither Joe or Bob Joe got the most votes, the write in canidates were split between something like 2.5 million diferent people becasue many people either voted for themselves or for someone else few people even know about. In a "none of the above" system where the votes were

2 Million for Joe

1 Million for Bob

3 Million for None of the above

Instead of electing Joe (who in both situtations people CLEARLY do not want in office) we would go find someone the people can agree on.


We actually have a system here where you can vote (branco) white, or none of the above as it is called. What happens is that these votes are discarded. Branco can not win. If you simply don't vote, then your vote is counted as being a vote for the candidate with the most votes without these (nulo) votes. We have compulsory voting though so the only way of abstaining is to vote branco.

We actually have a system here where you can vote (branco) white, or none of the above as it is called. What happens is that these votes are discarded. Branco can not win. If you simply don't vote, then your vote is counted as being a vote for the candidate with the most votes without these (nulo) votes. We have compulsory voting though so the only way of abstaining is to vote branco.

Compulsory voting scares me, it feels like it's a short step away (especialy as described here) from compulsory voting for (insert canidate here).

ahhh....I loved Brewster's Millions. That Richard Pryor, such a card. :)