Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Election Reform: None of the Above

Submitted by Jon Henke on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 09:29
in

Once again, Ron Paul has the inkling of an important idea, but he ruins it with paranoia and a ridiculously futile recommendation. 

In a statement yesterday, Ron Paul announced that "our two-party system offers no real choice" and that the "real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues."  Insofar as he's complaining that neither Republicans nor Democrats are really dealing with fundamental issues about the size and role of government, he's absolutely right. 

Unfortunately, in typical Ron Paul fashion, his recommendation to address the two-party system is absurd.  Either don't vote, he says, or vote for a third party candidate.

The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.  [...]

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

Look, I have no problem with those who choose not to vote - voting is, after all, irrational - but there is no shortage of non-voters; they accounted for 36% of US adults in 2004. Without a specific trigger mechanism for them to re-engage in the electoral process, non-voters will simply be ignored.

And unless there are structural changes made to the electoral process, voting for these particular third party candidates will be equally futile.  In particular, I think the Libertarian Party is an excercise in futility, or even counterproductive.  Once again, Ron Paul has identified a problem...and offered an absurdly ineffectual solution which only demonstrates that he hasn't really thought about how to solve the problem at all.

Here's a better idea: Require that None of the Above be an option in every race. If None of the Above gets the most votes, replace the candidates and vote again until "the consent of the governed" is actually given.

It would force the dominant political parties to compete for the dissatisfied voters; it would give the alienated voters a choice; it would reduce the massive advantage that incumbents have; it would ensure there were no unopposed elections; it would ensure that a broader range of political philosophies were represented at the polls.  It would, in short, be far more democratic than the current, restricted process - something our "open" political opponents should appreciate and support - and far more useful than Ron Paul's absurd recommendation.  (more information on NOTA voting here)

That's the sort of transformative, game-changing, serious initiative that Republicans should use in every State to win back a reputation as the reform party - and potentially earn back millions of alienated limited government voters.

An amusing and relevant side-note: in So Long and Thanks for All the Fish, Douglas Adams really captured the problems with the democratic process.

[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]  "I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."[...]

[Ford explains to Arthur] "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford ... "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. [...]  Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

RIP Douglas Adams

Submitted by acheron on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 10:07.

One of my favorite parts of the Hitchhiker's series.

Wait a minute...

Submitted by Pogue_Mahone on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 10:29.

 

You call Paul’s suggestions to be “a ridiculously futile recommendation”, yet your stunning idea is to get people to vote for “none of the above”!?

Your idea is to try to get some of the tens of millions of people who are excited about the McCain/Palin ticket, and the tens of millions of people who are excited about the Obama/Biden ticket. 

Yet Paul’s idea is “ridiculously futile”?

Riiight.

 

These are the same tens of millions of people who actually buy their candidate’s bullshit.

 

People like to get behind something.  It’s the same basic human behavior that causes people to enthusiastically support sports teams.  The same guy who sits in the upper deck sweating the blue paint off his face is the same guy who wears an elephant hat at the convention and puts silly political slogan bumperstickers on his car.  You’re going to convince these people to vote for “none of the above”!?  And yet Paul’s idea is ridiculously futile???

 

Your own website that you proudly proclaimed would be a new direction for the Right, is suffocated with members cheerleading the man you once feared like the plague*.  Your fellow bloggers are the same people who would hang John McCain over things like McCain/Feingold just a few months ago, but are now projecting McCain to be the original maverick who is going to save us from the liberal horde.  The Next Right is the upper deck, you people are the one’s sweating the paint off your face.

 

Which proves that even people like you want to get behind something.  And you want them to now get behind nothing?

And it’s Paul’s idea that is “ridiculously futile”?

* Remember Tom Perkin’s comment:  “I wish the VC still had him. … Goddamn McCain to hell and the horse he rose in on.”

Ten to one says Tom votes for McCain this year.

Read it again

Submitted by Jon Henke on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 10:36.

You call Paul’s suggestions to be “a ridiculously futile recommendation”, yet your stunning idea is to get people to vote for “none of the above”!?

No, that's not my idea.  Read it again.  I want a procedural change that makes None of the Above a standard choice.   This gives people a chance to vote AGAINST people on the ballot, rather than only for them. 

The change in incentives could have a substantial marginal impact.  Ron Paul's recommendation has no utility value.

Same intent, Jon.

Submitted by Pogue_Mahone on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 10:57.

And how would that retract the enthusiasm from the tens of millions who are excited about their candidate?

 

And how does your idea differ that much from Paul's?

Wouldn't a vote for third party candidates do the exact same things that NOTA would?

a)  force the dominant political parties to compete for the dissatisfied voter

b)  give the alienated voters a choice

c)  it would reduce the massive advantage that incumbents have

d)  it would ensure that a broader range of political philosophies were represented at the polls.

 

A protest vote is a protest vote.

Look, I like the idea of a NOTA on the ballot.  I think your presentation is an interesting one worthy of great consideration.  It's just too bad you had to blast Paul and those who would vote for a third party candidate as an exercise in futility in the process.  Especially when your idea would be an equal if not greater exercise in futility.

not voting isn't registered as a protest vote.

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 11:42.

I think the point is, not voting isn't registered as a protest vote.  Voting for NOTA is an explicit vote of no-confidence in any of the candidates.

Some people vote for Libertarians, Green Party, Nader, etc, because they actually want them to win, not as punishment for wrongs from the recent past.  So, how do you seperate the protest 3rd party vote from the I want them to win 3rd party vote.

What would Jefferson do?

Submitted by lagomorph on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 13:00.

"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." - Thomas Jefferson

Interesting thoughts, Jon.  I actually like the idea of people being able to express no confidence in any of the candidates, but that very concept lends itself to a critique of the entire process of bringing up candidates through the ranks, creating the whole "farm team" approach, and presenting candidates in whom the public can be confident. 

Here's an idea

Submitted by Bryan Pick on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 13:57.

This is completely off the top of my head, but... voting is about signalling.  The more flexible the voter's choices, the more likely he is to show you what he really wants.

So here are my recommendations, from most workable to least workable:

  • NOTA should be available for those who are distinctly unhappy about the entire field.  This would help to differentiate the angry anti-voter from the apathetic non-voter.  It would weaken the mandate of candidates who otherwise claim the "consent of the governed."  It would be significantly easier than overcoming ballot restriction laws that have kept all those third parties down.
  • Voters should also have the option of voting against a particular candidate in lieu of voting for one, which would literally cancel one vote for that candidate.  This would show up separately, like so:  McCain 37 (+42/-5), Obama 36.5 (+43.5/-7), NOTA 2, Barr 0.5 (+0.5/-0).  If you don't particularly like McCain or the third party candidates, but Obama scares you (or vice versa), you can avoid putting your seal of approval on anyone you disagree with and still register your disapproval.
  • To undercut the "A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama" argument, there's this alternative to instant-runoff: allow voters to vote for one candidate unless it causes their second choice to lose.  E.g., "Vote Barr; but if Obama receives the most votes, vote against Obama instead."  This way you can state your real preference (the numbers of voters who choose this could be published along with the final tally) without unwittingly playing the spoiler.  I wonder if that would have tilted Florida or New Hampshire to Gore in 2000.

While a simple computer program could work out the results of this system, I'm not sure how workable my recommendations are (the last one is probably too complex for many voters, but since people only vote rarely, they should at least have the opportunity to register as precise a signal as possible), but the ideas just popped into my head and I think they'd be good for democracy: candidates would have to try that much harder to convince the people that they have a mandate to govern.  They would have a better idea of who they have to reach out to, and running up one's own positives would yield a better mandate than running up your opponents' negatives.

Pogue - Voting third party is not the same as voting NOTA, since it implies positive support for a particular candidate/party rather than necessarily a frustration with the field.  People don't always like to get behind something, either, which should be obvious in a day when "the lesser of two evils" is a cliche.

Difference

Submitted by Jon Henke on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 14:15.

I don't have a problem with people voting for a third party candidate. But, given the structure of the electoral system, third party candidates don't have a shot.  They tend to be fringe and very narrowly appealing, and they have trouble even getting on the ballot.  NOTA, on the other hand, is politically neutral (insofar as it has equal value and meaning to any political persuasion).

A NOTA vote has a much better chance at swinging an election and/or making an impact on the electoral decisions of the other candidates and parties.   NOTA changes the incentives in a way that fringe, third party candidates do not. 

futile, futile, futile

Submitted by Pogue_Mahone on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 14:33.

Pogue - Voting third party is not the same as voting NOTA, since it implies positive support for a particular candidate/party rather than necessarily a frustration with the field.

 

Sure, but in all practicallity, when over ninety percent of the voting public will vote for either Dems or Reps, voting NOTA will be just the same... a wasted vote.  Which is why Jon's idea is just as futile as Paul's. 

If you can get a substantial amount of voters to actually vote NOTA, then it might have the effect Jon thinks it would.  Well... So would getting a substatial amount of voters to vote third party.  You wanna put NOTA on the ballot?  Then great, I probably would ellect to vote NOTA this year.  But don't kid yourselves, it would be just as futile as voting third party.

People don't always like to get behind something, either, which should be obvious in a day when "the lesser of two evils" is a cliche.

 

Sure, but most people do.  That's the point.

And even the not-so-long-ago-McCain-hating-hosts of QandO are now defending his run at every corner.  You guys over there defend his ads, you defend his statements, you defend Palin's innacuracies, you guys are behind the McCain ticket %100.  Lesser of two evils notwithstanding, you guys are behind McCain... enthusiastically.

And to say otherwise would be nothing but a big, thick, steaming pile of horseshit.

 

Here's saying otherwise

Submitted by Bryan Pick on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 15:10.

We don't know how many people would vote NOTA.  It could be rather popular in this country, and again, even if it doesn't sway an election, it still differentiates the actively disgusted from the apathetic.  That has a value all its own.

Asking people to vote for a particular politician or party has its pitfalls, especially considering how few voters ever hear anything about third parties and their candidates.  It's far more common to have something against the Republican and Democrat candidates than to approve of a particular alternative.

You claim that most people like to get behind a particular candidate.  If that's true, it's not an overwhelming majority we're talking about -- look at how few Republican-leaning voters were enthusiastic about their own candidate before the Palin pick, as opposed to being merely anti-Obama.

And even the not-so-long-ago-McCain-hating-hosts of QandO are now defending his run at every corner.  You guys over there defend his ads, you defend his statements, you defend Palin's innacuracies, you guys are behind the McCain ticket %100.  Lesser of two evils notwithstanding, you guys are behind McCain... enthusiastically.

And to say otherwise would be nothing but a big, thick, steaming pile of horseshit.

Last I checked, Billy Hollis is still very anti-McCain.  I don't see Dale Franks or Lance going wild for McCain -- Dale essentially said on the podcast that he thinks the Palin pick was a politically smart pick, but that's about all I've heard from him.  Michael Wade has posted not only about substantial criticism of Palin, but just this week had objected (initially) to a McCain ad regarding the sex education thing.  That, and he's disagreed with a few of my statements regarding Palin and Obama.  Jon hasn't been posting at QandO lately, but he's hardly shown himself to be a fan of McCain's while posting at The Next Right.  McQ likes Palin, seems to have serious problems with McCain, and is taking Obama to task -- you can, after all, be anti-Obama without putting in a good word for McCain.  And as for me, I'm probably the most enthusiastic of anyone at QandO about Palin, largely because I think she can move the Republican Party in a better direction and because she represents the best chance of avoiding years of a Democrat-controlled federal government.  And I let everyone know how stupid I thought Obama's "lipstick" comment was.  But you've never seen me in the tank for McCain.  I still haven't decided how to vote, but I tell you... I would sure like to have some of the options I mentioned above when November 4 rolls around.

I can produce links to back up my statement above.  Can you provide evidence for your argument?  You know, now that you've claimed that any contrary arguments are horsesh*t.

you guys are behind the

Submitted by Jon Henke on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 15:04.

you guys are behind the McCain ticket %100.  Lesser of two evils notwithstanding, you guys are behind McCain... enthusiastically.

I've been quite explicit that (a) I think gridlock is valuable, and (b) I am concerned about total Democratic consolidation of power.   However, I have no yet decided how I will cast my vote.

All I know is that I am voting for Palin!

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 16:47.

I truly wish she we're at the top of the ticket instead of the bottom because I truly do not like or trust McRino.  However given the circumstances voting for the GOP ticket possibly gives us a Palin presidency if, as celebritard Matt Damon fears, something does happen to the old coot while in office.  Or in four years since its fairly obvious he wouldn't try for a second term.

I would vote for a third party candidate since here in Kentucky, Obama might as well claim he worships Satan and likes to molest little boys, cause he is about as popular here but when are choices suck there as well.  B ut I am not going to vote for Boob Barr, Chuckie the Theocrat Bladwin or Ralph Nader so I voting in the hope of the besst possible outcome.  Besides we do need a check on this Godforsaken congress because this apparently isn't going to be the year we fix the mistake the voters made in 2006.

You call that voting reform?

Submitted by supun on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 18:32.

Seriously, just putting a "None of the Above" on the ballot isn't going to fix all of America's electoral problems. Move to a preferential or proportional system, so 3rd party's can actually get elected and people dont have to worry about their vote being wasted. Australia, where im from, has a very good system which we've had very few problems with, http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/inst/elect/ . Consider something like that, reform not just a gimmick.