# "None of the above" option **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 25, 2016, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168 "2016-01-25T12:51:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tread](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@Tread](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tread)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/21 "2016-01-30T06:07:22Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > . Should there be a way to indicate my displeasure with them, while still indicating that I’m not too lazy/apathetic to vote? > > . I had a similar problem once. Several years ago, locally we had a election for Sheriff. That was the only race on the ballot. Three people running, none of which I could support. I went to the polling place, signed in, entered booth, and exited booth. So I signed in was counted as a voter but never cast a ballot. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/22 "2016-01-30T07:14:57Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I lived for 15 years in Nevada. Which had “None of the Above” as a choice on every state ballot office. It was a nice gesture, and occasionally NotA got the plurality. > > If NotA did win the plurality the result was to discard those votes and declare the second place runner-up the actual winner. Hmm. Interesting idea just hit me. What if, in the event of a NotA plurality, they let the second-place finisher accept the office, with the proviso that [s]he be limited to a single term (in the case of an incumbent, it would be the last term [s]he is eligible to hold that office)? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/23 "2016-01-30T13:48:50Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I lived for 15 years in Nevada. Which had “None of the Above” as a choice on every state ballot office. It was a nice gesture, and occasionally NotA got the plurality. > > If NotA did win the plurality the result was to discard those votes and declare the second place runner-up the actual winner. This is as anti-democratic and contemptuous of the people as voiding a first-place _candidate_. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/24 "2016-01-30T14:39:12Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > This is as anti-democratic and contemptuous of the people as voiding a first-place _candidate_. Actually, it’s simply the same thing as not having a NotA choice at all. IOW, exactly what most elections in most jurisdictions have. The real person with the most votes wins. ## I’m not suggesting they don’t publish the results accurately. Example of how Nevada does it:For State Dogcatcher: None of the Above: 10,345 votes Bob Smith: 8,765 votes Jane Doe: 5,432 votes Spoiled or blank votes: 2,345 non-votes. ## The winner is Bob Smith.How is that different from a different jurisdiction with no NotA choice? Example of how a typical jurisdiction does it: For State Dogcatcher: Bob Smith: 8,765 votes Jane Doe: 5,432 votes Spoiled or blank votes: 12,690 non-votes. The winner is Bob Smith. IMO in order for NotA coming first to have teeth, it either needs to result in a fresh election with none of the current candidates eligible, or it needs to result in the office remaining vacant (or in the hands of the incumbent) until the next election cycle. Neither of those options has much real world practicality. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/25 "2016-01-30T14:54:55Z")
The [2003 California Gubernatorial Recall Election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recall_election) was interesting, though its peculiarity was sort of opposite to None-of-the-above. The incumbent Gray Davis received 4.0 million votes; Arnold Schwarzenegger won with 4.2 million votes. _However Schwarzenegger would have won with a million fewer votes._ Moreover, many of those voting Schwarzenegger also voted for Davis. The rule was that Davis needed 50+%; otherwise the _other_ candidate with most votes would win, even if they got far fewer than Davis. (California law was that those voting to retain Davis could not vote for an alternative, but this law was overturned by a federal judge 2 months before the election; many of those voting Schwarzenegger also voted to retain Davis.) ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/26 "2016-01-30T15:27:27Z")
At least a guy taking office after “losing” to none of the above wouldn’t be able to claim possession of a mandate. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/27 "2016-01-30T18:00:45Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > I say, yes, it should be possible to reject a whole field of candidates. Let there be a “none of the above” line in every election. Should that option actually garner a majority, a new election is automatically scheduled, _in which none of the rejected candidates are eligible_. Been saying that for years. I swear, I used to joke about running for office on the platform of “Well, I couldn’t do any worse” - I seriously think I could actually get a hell of a lot of votes with that platform right now … And yes, I could see if we had that in the electoral system the idiots would be claiming that ‘Obammer was making his move to taking over the presidency permanently, get ready for all the guns to get conficamakated and the death panels to git started up!!!’ even though he would obviously have to stay in office pro tem until the new panel of candidates was ready. ---
**Author:** ![GreenElf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@GreenElf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenElf)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/28 "2016-01-30T21:03:29Z")
> [@Tread](#): > > I had a similar problem once. > Several years ago, locally we had a election for Sheriff. > That was the only race on the ballot. > Three people running, none of which I could support. > I went to the polling place, signed in, entered booth, and exited booth. > So I signed in was counted as a voter but never cast a ballot. I generally vote on propositions I have an opinion about and leave the candidates section blank unless there’s a specific candidate I want to vote for. I don’t just auto-fill the single candidate circles and by party for the rest. I don’t know if they interpret that as “none of the above”, but they should. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/29 "2016-02-06T00:30:42Z")
I’ve come to a way out of this dilemma. I’ve begun to think in terms of, not voting for a President, but voting for future Justices of the Supreme Court. Which candidate, in spite of my total dislike of them, would pick the most favorable Justices? Based on that criterion only, I’ve tentatively decided. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168/30 "2016-02-06T01:02:35Z")
The only real reason for none of the above would be to make sure you didn’t accidentally leave it blank. Well, that, and a procedural option in electronic voting so you can not vote in one race and move on to the ones you do plan to vote for. Australia, with its required voting, has the former. I seem to remember the electronic machines I used in 2008 having the latter, with also an option to just quit after you’d voted as much as you wanted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/none-of-the-above-option/744168.md?page=1)