None of the above
If you really look hard (you’ll have to do your own analysis) you’ll see how the election system has become progressively unfair. Why? Because of subtle biases built into the system over the years. It’s to the point that many races are uncontested, as it’s a waste of time for an opponent to spend enormous amounts of effort, time and money to run to a guaranteed loss.
Many candidates do it for vanity, like in presidential races knowing that they won’t and can’t win. But they run anyway. If they have any sense they use donated money; if they don’t, they use their own. Take that anyway you want.
When you gamble in Las Vegas, you may know that the house has a very small advantage over the gamblers. That small advantage is all they need to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. It’s their game, and they spend all their time and effort to keep that edge.
The same goes for the political business, (yes, business) fueled by gerrymandered districts, restrictive state laws and subtle methodologies so that one side of the other gets reelected all of the time. Statistically, it’s a fact and fueled by human behavior.
One problem that I’d like to fix is that incumbents can easily build a war chest of up to tens of millions of dollars and block any underfunded attempt to depose them. Even when they leave office, they can keep it and influence other elections, far in excess of members of the public. While the individual is bound by one set of donation rules, an incumbent or former incumbent isn’t. The public doesn’t know this; you only discover it when you run for election and you’re focused on this topic for a while.
In reference to “None of the Above,” I have often wondered why so many people vote in races where only one person is running. After all, that person will vote for themselves and win. Just a single vote, and yet they can get tens of thousands of votes. Why?
It simple. It’s called human nature. When people vote most feel compelled to vote in every single race. So if they see a check-box, they check it. Sad but true. I think that only supporters of the opposing party do not feel compelled but grumble that no one from their own party ran against the incumbent. That leads me to my topic…
What, if in every uncontested race that in addition to the single vote for me box, there is another – None of the Above check box? I bet that you’re smiling now, as you believe that None of the Above will win many races. I think that you’re right.
If None of the Above “wins,” I think that the loser should not be able to run again. Instead there should be a “runoff” between the two Primary runners’ up. So even if the system calls for the incumbent to win yet again, against challengers who are underfunded and unknown the game isn’t completely over at the Primary.
The two challengers with the greatest Primary vote count (after the “winner”) will get to fight each other for the seat. If the Primary only had one challenger in addition to the “winner,” then the loser and the winner (incumbent) get to move to the special election.
I know that this type of system will be gamed, that is if a seat is held by a Republican, the Democrats who wouldn’t have voted in that race will all vote None of the Above en masse, and the Republicans and Independents who don’t like the incumbent either will also vote against. But it will shake things up, and that’s what this nation needs.
The point is not to create an uproar but to level the very, very uneven playing field. We need a national debate.
I will certainly start one if elected. And FYI, None of the Above is officially on the ballots in Nevada.
Vote for me in November. I’ll tell you the unvarnished truth. You may not like it but it will be the truth, not rhetorical noise you hear from the other flag-waiving politicians.
