Congressman Alan Grayson is proposing to add a "None of the Above" candidate to all federal elections. Do you support or oppose the idea?

There are always many things to vote on at the same time as when we elect the president, at least in  the states where I have lived.  This year there were Congressmen, Senator, State Constitutional Amendments, Sheriff, etc. elected at the same time.  It's must easier voting by mail; it allows me to sit down with the ballot and review exactly what the Amendments and levies are. I have to say I like mail voting, but I think it's an opportunity for fraud. 

Yes, Thrift, I also voted by mail as well, but what does this have to do with the question?  Or what I said? 

We are wondering here, dear lady, what would an option of NEITHER ONE garner, knowing that if we get enough NEITHER ONE counts, we shall have a guaranteed new election in 6 weeks.  Read question.   Yes, Ms. Thrifty I also mailed my ballot.  A fat lot of good it did.  

The point is that there are lots of things on the ballot besides the president.  So, if one doesn't want to vote for a presidential candidate, they still have voting to do.  Not voting in an election, this subject being the presidential one, is a way for someone to use their vote. 

I started to add a Doobie Bros tune, but felt like that would be off topic.  ;)

@TM -- Providing a "None of the Above" candidate in an election in no way takes away anyone's right to vote any way they choose on any office or ballot measure.

To my knowledge, no one is proposing that "None of the Above" be made the default if a vote for an office is left blank on a ballot.

As far as I can tell, you're just griping for the sake of griping.

That post was for Sharrona.  I failed to put her name at the beginning. 

I suspect it wouldn't have much effect, given what I've observed about political polarization in the USA. But I'd like to see it tried to see what does happen.

That was fun, even though it is off-topic...;-D...

FUN?  FUN???  This is shocking. 

Oh man, WW, you are deplorable.  LOLOLOL

@TM -- In theory, NOTA could be of great import. Imagine if NOTA actually won the recent Presidential election. We'd be scrambling to see who the major parties put up as substitutes.

In practice, I agree. People who are motivated enough to vote typically are motivated to vote FOR something, and history suggests they'll overlook a lot of caveats to vote FOR the candidate/policy they prefer.

I think your answer brings up an important point. My reading of election behavior suggests people WILL vote for Horrible Candidate A if A's ideology more or less lines up with that of the voter, because at least A is NOT Even More Horrible Candidate B.

There isn't much evidence people will decide to NOT vote for either Horrible Candidate.

Having lived through the Great California Governor Recall Election (which brought The Governator into office), I think our democracy can stand a little chaos.

In fact, there is an argument to be made our democracy is bit too predictable. Since about 1980, a clear front-runner had emerged from both major parties and most of the election cycle is wasted on pretending anyone but The Big 2 have a chance.

Still, I would be interested to see if multiple NOTA runoffs ever became a problem.

I would agree with you entirely.  Many, and many of those in let's say, 'elevated' positions within the current system would not.  Sadly for us, these people (at least here, and I suspect elsewhere too) are where the power to make such decisions lies.

I'm all for a little experimentation with how things work though, if only for the possibility that it might keep a few people a bit more honest.

As I noted elsewhere, I think partisan polarization would render it ineffective (at least in the near future). But I'd like to see what would happen if it became an option.

Some have proposed a form of voting called "instant runoff" where people RANK their preference of candidates. For example, in the recent election someone might have submitted a ballot like:

1) Jill Stein
2) Lawrence Lessig
3) Hillary Clinton
4) Gary Johnson
Etc.

In instant runoff elections, if someone doesn't win an outright majority of #1 preference votes, then some sort of scoring system is used to add up 2nd preference votes, 3rd preference votes, and so forth.

Proponents argue it would tend to elect candidates who have the broadest appeal across all voters, rather than simply the one whose faction happens to temporarily have a plurality.

We have that in Australia ... They are called preferences and are assigned by the pau of each person running though .. It can lead to some strange results at times ... In recent ejections weer had a senator elected work only a few percent of the total vote due to some horse trading before the ejection

Oz what does "the pau" mean?  Is that a word?  I'm not understanding.    Thanks.

@og256 -- Yes, please elucidate on Australia's voting system. Maybe we Ugly Americans can learn something from it...;-D...

LATE EDIT: Note, this is NOT snark. I ***genuinely*** believe Americans could benefit by learning about how other democracies function. We Yanks have a tendency to believe we got it right and showed the rest of the world how it's done when, in fact, there are many democracies around the world who do things as well or better than the USA. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 22, 2016 11:03 AM MST