Nevada’s "None of the Above"
Option Ruled Invalid
"In a high-stakes election that could help determine the presidency and control of the U.S. Senate, a judge has ruled Nevada's unique 'none of the above' ballot option is unconstitutional and has to go," the AP reports [at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-strikes-down-nevadas-none-of-the-above-voting-option/2012/08/22/16a19c34-ec89-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html ]. The judge ruled "that because the 'none' option can never win, even if it gets the most votes, it essentially makes those votes not count."
Rick Hasen: "The case has important implications -- Republicans want to eliminate NOTA because they think doing so will help get more anti-Obama votes for Romney."
-- http://politicalwire.com posted August 22, 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Comments by the Blog Author
The Republican National Committee bankrolled the federal lawsuit in an attempt to get more anti-Obama votes for Romney, says the Associated Press. A federal district court concurred with elimination of the none of the above voting option.
The blog author feels that this federal district court decision is wrong. Voters have a right to express their repudiation of all candidates as, jointly and severally, insufficiently qualified for the office. This goes beyond skipping the selections ("undervoting") and not showing up at the polling place.
When the winner has a margin less than the number of "none of these candidates" votes, you have a nervous, fidgety winner who will know, through his elected term, that he is on thin ice. People who were well informed, came to the polling place, looked at the race and still voted to repudiate the candidates will haunt the winner and his political circle – which is a necessary and democratic way to send a specific, vital and important message. That's what voters do on election day.
Option Ruled Invalid
"In a high-stakes election that could help determine the presidency and control of the U.S. Senate, a judge has ruled Nevada's unique 'none of the above' ballot option is unconstitutional and has to go," the AP reports [at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-strikes-down-nevadas-none-of-the-above-voting-option/2012/08/22/16a19c34-ec89-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html ]. The judge ruled "that because the 'none' option can never win, even if it gets the most votes, it essentially makes those votes not count."
Rick Hasen: "The case has important implications -- Republicans want to eliminate NOTA because they think doing so will help get more anti-Obama votes for Romney."
-- http://politicalwire.com posted August 22, 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Comments by the Blog Author
The Republican National Committee bankrolled the federal lawsuit in an attempt to get more anti-Obama votes for Romney, says the Associated Press. A federal district court concurred with elimination of the none of the above voting option.
The blog author feels that this federal district court decision is wrong. Voters have a right to express their repudiation of all candidates as, jointly and severally, insufficiently qualified for the office. This goes beyond skipping the selections ("undervoting") and not showing up at the polling place.
When the winner has a margin less than the number of "none of these candidates" votes, you have a nervous, fidgety winner who will know, through his elected term, that he is on thin ice. People who were well informed, came to the polling place, looked at the race and still voted to repudiate the candidates will haunt the winner and his political circle – which is a necessary and democratic way to send a specific, vital and important message. That's what voters do on election day.
No comments:
Post a Comment