[EM] The None of the Above Chorus:

[Anthony Simmons]

>> From: donald at mich.com (I Like Irving)
>> Subject: [EM] The None of the Above Chorus:

>> Dear Tom and Tony,

>>      I join your chorus, I also like None-of-the-Above.

>> The concept of None of the Above is used in some countries.  The more I
>> think about it the more I feel that it has a place.  It gives the people a
>> bit more control in an election.  Its most apparent value is in the
>> situation when the number of candidates running for an office is the same
>> as the number of positions to be filled.  No candidate should be guaranteed
>> winning an election because of no opposition.  All candidates must face the
>> mathematical possibility of losing. If only one candidate is running for a
>> single position like mayor then the opposition for that candidate should be
>> None Of The Above.  If None Of The Above pulls more votes than the lone
>> candidate then that candidate loses.  The follow up election will have no
>> trouble gaining extra candidates now that it is known that this one
>> candidate is a loser.

Well put.  Nobody should be assured an office.  Right now,
people who are fed up with the alternatives can only express
that in one of two ways:  Vote for Mickey Mouse, which is not
entirely useful, or don't vote at all.  Those may both be
protests, but that's all they are -- a message.  I'd rather
see every vote count for something, even if it's for nothing.

One thing that is going to take a little working out is how
to include two or more Nones in something like STV.  On the
one hand, we wouldn't want three Nones to each get one half
of one quota, with none of them elected, so we'd want to make
sure that everyone who votes for None gets counted for the
same None.  On the other hand, if I vote for three Nones, do
those go to the same None, like a bullet vote, or would they
go to different ones?

But I don't see why those things couldn't be worked out.  And
people ought to be able to vote any way they want, even if
it's purely negative.