U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones will hear Townley v State of Nevada on Wednesday, August 22, at 10 a.m., in Reno. This is the lawsuit over “None of the above” (actually, in Nevada, it is “None of These Candidates”). Plaintiffs argue that if that option appears on the ballot, the law must make it binding. In other words, if Nevada is going to have a “NOTA” then if “NOTA” gets the most votes, no one is elected. The argument is highly theoretical, but is based on the definition of “vote” and the need to treat all votes equally.
Some of the Republican presidential elector candidates are plaintiffs, and plaintiffs argue that if “NOTA” is not binding, then it should be removed from the ballot. Under current Nevada law, “NOTA” only appears on primary and general election ballots for statewide office, not for U.S. House or legislature or local office. Judge Jones is a Bush Jr. appointee.
So we don’t vote or vote for Romney since this election is anybody but Obama. There is really no difference in people simply writing in Mickey’s name vs checking none of the above.
The option is mearly a phrase, not a complete sentence. If there were an extended explanation of what is accomplished by selecting that option it would have to pass muster. Many already understand how that vote/option works despite the brevity.
Quite often there are no candidates worthy enough to vote FOR and none dreadful enough to motivate a strategic vote against.
Is it just not permissable for a state to have an explicit method for undervoting. Not voting for anyone is fuctionally equally explicit to voting for or against if passive.
It’s fuctionally an abstention that is highlighted.
1 – Dave. Don’t fret. You can always write in Akin for President.
“NOTA” then = “Not Obama…This Asshole”
I have never understood the intentions behind why Nevada has had the “NOTA” option on the ballot. Could someone please explain it for me? Thanks. 🙂
There should be a primary in Nevada for a slate of electors for the none of the above option, these electors should be unbound to any candidate and able to vote for anyone they please.
Pingback: LInks 8/21/12 « naked capitalism
I’m voting for “A, B and E, but not C and D”
Voters should be able to vote for None of the Above, All of the Above or Some of the Above. Just because you have 1 vote doesn’t mean you should vote for only 1 option. You should vote for many options but if you vote for more than 1 option, your vote is split.