It’s been an ugly election. The Republicans desperately deserved
to lose. Far from supporting limited government, the GOP has become
a party of big spenders and intrusive social meddlers. Whatever one
thinks of the decision to go to war in Iraq, the administration has
bungled the conflict at almost every point.
But the Democrats certainly didn’t deserve to win. They remain
bigger spenders and more intrusive social meddlers. And most of the
Democratic leaders continue to say that they were right in voting
for war, while offering no intelligent exit strategy.
Unfortunately, on Election Day there was no way to punish the
Republicans without rewarding the Democrats. A GOP regular who
voted Democratic would have helped the undeserving Dems win. Even
abstention effectively aided the other side. (Obviously the reverse
also was true. A sensible Democrat who abhors what his party has
become, but had little desire to support GOP hacks and shills, had
no good option either.)
There was an easy solution, however. The Turkey Ballot.
Every election should include a “none of the above” option along
with the names of the candidates. (Ballot access also should be
liberalized to allow more alternative voices, but that is a
separate issue.) A vote for NOTA would punish all candidates
simultaneously.
By increasing options for voters, NOTA almost certainly would
increase voter turnout. The cynical, burned-out, frustrated, and
angry would have a reason to go to the polls. Even if a citizen
disliked all of the candidates — especially if a citizen disliked
all of the candidate — he would feel good about voting.
Moreover, any significant vote for NOTA would embarrass
establishment contenders. In most races someone probably would
still triumph, but many officials likely would take office with but
a plurality of the vote, tarnishing their credibility and image. A
large number of NOTA votes would be far more effective than a low
voter turnout in registering discontent with the poor choices
routinely provided by the major parties.
NOTA would prove most beneficial, however, if a majority or
plurality of voters chose it. Then no candidate would be
elected.
A new election would have to be held. Two or more candidates
would have suffered the ultimate humiliation — voters preferred
“no one” to them. A losing candidate with more chutzpah than common
sense could run again, but being voted a turkey by one’s neighbors
would have a sobering effect on all but the most egotistical
politician.
Successive humiliations inflicted by the electorate might drive
some of the worst electoral dregs out of politics altogether. Today
second-rate candidates win by beating third-rate opponents. With
NOTA, both the second- and third-raters would lose.
Further, NOTA would encourage political parties to select better
candidates. Even “safe” districts would no longer be safe, since
loyal Republicans or Democrats could reject incompetent, corrupt,
or brainless candidates from their own party without electing
someone from the opposition.
Moreover, repeated rejections would diminish the “brand” value
of a party. Losses thus would be felt well beyond a local district
or one state. Party regulars would have an incentive to look beyond
loyalists who had “paid their dues.”
Creating a NOTA would not be without complications. More
elections would have to be held. Repeated NOTA victories could
leave an office temporarily unfilled.
So long as primaries were held well in advance of the general
election, however, successive NOTA victories would not delay the
general election. In the unlikely event that no candidate was
approved after multiple primaries, the general election could
feature whatever other contenders had won their respective party
primaries.
If NOTA won in a general election, a new vote would be
expeditiously scheduled, which would not delay the swearing in or
inauguration of the winner. If citizens said no in several
successive ballots, legislative seats could be left vacant while
executive positions, such as governorships, could remain filled by
the outgoing official.
The logistics for a presidential race would be more complicated.
In primaries a NOTA victory would yield no delegates, denying
support for all contenders and making it more difficult for any
candidate to amass a majority to win the nomination. Or NOTA could
be backed by a slate of uncommitted delegates — who were legally
barred from voting for any candidate who was on the ballot and came
in behind NOTA.
As for the general election, a triumph by NOTA should result in
a new election by late-December or early January, negating any need
to delay the new president’s inauguration. America’s endless
presidential electoral season is an international anomaly;
parliamentary systems like Great Britain measure their campaign
seasons in weeks.
Should NOTA triumph again, a new election should be scheduled
within two months and the incumbent would remain in office until
his successor was elected. Or, alternatively, the election could be
left up to the House of Representatives, should the prospect of
such a delay seem unthinkable.
Obviously, the downside of NOTA is increased political
instability. However, such instability is a way of life with
parliamentary systems. Most also utilize short campaign seasons and
short transitions between governments. In Britain, the new prime
minister takes over immediately: indeed, the family barely has time
to pack before movers are carting away the ousted prime minister’s
belongings.
Anyway, the benefits of such a system exceed the costs. Politics
today is broken. Neither major party is meeting America’s needs.
NOTA would allow voters to punish all the leading contenders if the
latter were deemed to be inadequate.
NOTA also would help reverse popular cynicism, since citizens
again would have a real choice come election time. No more choosing
between two evils, where the best one can say is that one candidate
isn’t quite as bad as another.
On Election Day neither party was offering the American people
thoughtful and principled leadership. NOTA would allow us to tell
both Republicans and Democrats to try again until they get it
right.
