[EM] "None of the Rest"
SEppley at alumni.caltech.edu
Wed Feb 23 12:37:29 PST 2000
Donald Davison wrote:
> Monday 2/21/00, Stephen Todd wrote:
> If a voter gives his first preference to an actual candidate, he can
> then go on and give a second or subsequent preference to the [None of the
> Above]NA option, but cannot then indicate further preferences beyond NA.
> In this latter case, the voter is saying, in effect, 'None of the Rest'.
There's a lot about "None of the Rest" (NOTR) in the archives of
the election-methods-list at eskimo.com maillist.
Though I was probably first to use that name in the maillist,
I've since reached the opinion that it would be better to name
it so that the name indicates what will happen if it wins.
For instance, "New Election in 30 Days" could be the
abbreviation for "Hold a new election in 30 days, with no
barriers to candidates' ballot access." And "Legislative
Appointment" could be the abbreviation for "The (state)
legislature shall appoint someone to serve out the normal term
of office." Unless the voters understand what they're voting
for, it's like choosing a pig in a poke.
My opinion is that given a good voting method (e.g., voters'
rankings tallied by Condorcet), there won't be a need to include
NOTR since good candidates wouldn't be deterred from competing.
Parties would have incentives to nominate more than one
candidate per office.
With a flawed voting method, however (e.g., Instant Runoff),
parties having a chance to win would continue to nominate only
one per office, and in the U.S. that one would presumably be
nominated using the "wealth primary" system. For the same
reason, only two parties (two candidates) would continue to
have a chance to win.
---Steve (Steve Eppley seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)
More information about the Election-Methods