Should we have the option of voting 'None of the Above'

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Just listened to Jesse Ventura (an American Hero) speak out for all elections, local, state and national to have an option of voting "None of the Above". This would permit all to participate in the voting process and express their true feelings, even if there was not a quality candidate. And, in the event, "None of the Above" would win, we would hold another election and not put an important job in the hands of someone simply because they were anybody but the other candidate. In 4 years a great deal of harm could occur to our City.

I like that option, and I can think of several prior elections where that is how I would have voted. Currently, when I feel this way I don't vote for any of the options. But that doesn't send the true meaning of my feelings forward. I have heard election analysts see this in results where they interpret it as lack of interest.

Would you like the option of voting for "None of the Above" in our local elections?

[Diane Helbig]

yes i most definitely would - now and in the past.

my brother used to vote for Bullwinkle - he had the right idea.

[dl meckes]

I think "No Confidence" (after each candidate's name) would feel better than "None of the Above".

[Bryan Schwegler]

While it could be interesting, that's not the way our political system is designed. It sounds nice, but it could have very real negative consequences.

[stephen davis]

Would you like the option of voting for "None of the Above" in our local elections?

Don,

Like many ideas, this sounds like a perfect solution. In practice, it really doesn't make sense. You can only vote for those who run. If the "None of the Above" candidates are the only ones that keep showing up, what are you going to do?

We already have non-partisan elections with a primary that sorts out the lowest vote getters from the top two. That has generally worked pretty well. "None of the Above" is not going to save us from an entirely bad field of candidates.

If what you are really getting at is not trusting anyone with the top job as mayor, then you might consider a Council/City Manager form of government. City Council would hire an administrator/manager.

Lakewood has been pretty fortunate with mayors, but there are other options to guard against your concerns about four years and "a great deal of harm" that are probably better than the "None of the Above" suggestion.

Steve

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Mr. Davis, your comment makes me wonder if you are a policy WONK.

My point is I want to vote for a candidate that I think is qualified. Not just Mayor, but for any elected position. Your suggestion of Council appointing a City Manager as a solution, seems to me to be going in the wrong direction. I am not happy with the choices so take away my having input in the process. No thank you, sir.

I am opposed to the City Manager form of government. What I feel would happen is we would be overpaying for several City Managers. One currently in office (not qualified in the eyes of the voters but qualified in the eyes of 4 Council persons) and one that was hired and then replaced, yet still paid due to contract obligations.

[stephen davis]

WONK

Me?

My point is I want to vote for a candidate that I think is qualified.

"None of the Above" will bring out your "qualified" candidate?

What I feel would happen is we would be overpaying for several City Managers. One currently in office (not qualified in the eyes of the voters but qualified in the eyes of 4 Council persons) and one that was hired and then replaced, yet still paid due to contract obligations.

Huh?

.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
If "None of the Above" wins, then we get new candidates. If we keep rotating the crop something good will come up sooner or later. Under the current system, there is no gauge of dissatisfaction with the choices.

Usually, City Managers have a contract that they get paid even if they are fired. Similar to the Cleveland CEO of the Schools. Perhaps, the Charter you helped draft for City Manager banned such a thing. Did it?

[Bryan Schwegler]

Hi,
If "None of the Above" wins, then we get new candidates. If we keep rotating the crop something good will come up sooner or later. Under the current system, there is no gauge of dissatisfaction with the choices.

The percentage of registered voters who cast a vote is a gauge. The number of people that skip voting on a particular race on the ballot is another gauge.

[stephen davis]

Usually, City Managers have a contract that they get paid even if they are fired. Similar to the Cleveland CEO of the Schools. Perhaps, the Charter you helped draft for City Manager banned such a thing.

Don,

You can read about professional city management at:

http://icma.org

Do your own research. Probably more interesting than you thought.

Steve

.

[Brian Pedaci]

Hi,
If "None of the Above" wins, then we get new candidates.

From where?

If there are qualified candidates who didn't run in the first election, what's going to get them out for a hastily-organized re-run?

There are filing deadlines, etc. in place to make sure that candidates for office are serious about their intentions. So if enough voters are convinced, either through lack of support for the names on the ballot or through desire to create chaos in the system, to vote 'NotA', you'd let just anyone put their names on the new ballot? So then you create a California recall-election style ballot with 40 names on it and little time for campaigning? How does that lead to informed choice? It seems the potential for a disastrous choice is much higher in that scenario.

I'm with Stephen. I admire the sentiment, but in practice it'd be a fiasco.

[Steve Hoffert]

Hi,
If "None of the Above" wins, then we get new candidates.

From where?

If there are qualified candidates who didn't run in the first election, what's going to get them out for a hastily-organized re-run?

There are filing deadlines, etc. in place to make sure that candidates for office are serious about their intentions. So if enough voters are convinced, either through lack of support for the names on the ballot or through desire to create chaos in the system, to vote 'NotA', you'd let just anyone put their names on the new ballot? So then you create a California recall-election style ballot with 40 names on it and little time for campaigning? How does that lead to informed choice? It seems the potential for a disastrous choice is much higher in that scenario.

I'm with Stephen. I admire the sentiment, but in practice it'd be a fiasco.

By having a "none of the above" category, individuals in third parties who would not have a chance otherwise may be motivated to put their name into the hat. When the initial party backed candidates get the proverbial boot in the a**, the alternates then have a chance. The two party system is a joke. Both parties are terminally ill and make the rules to keep others not in the "cult of corruption" out of politics.

A better alternative to elections in Lakewood would be caucusing. If a quorum could not be reached with the first combination of candidates then an alternate could be proposed and so on and so on until acceptable candidates are chosen.

[Bryan Schwegler]

By having a "none of the above" category, individuals in third parties who would not have a chance otherwise may be motivated to put their name into the hat. When the initial party backed candidates get the proverbial boot in the a**, the alternates then have a chance. The two party system is a joke. Both parties are terminally ill and make the rules to keep others not in the "cult of corruption" out of politics.

To be honest I think that would be very bad for 3rd parties. Most 3rd party cadidates have extreme views on many issues that would most likely turn off a good number of people if they actually had to try and win a general election.

Broken or not, the two-party system brings comfort in knowing that not much changes regardless of who wins for the most part. Radical ideas are not what get people elected in the United States. People are a creature of habit.

Not to mention systems with more than two parties are notoriously unstable. Coalition gov'ts, gov'ts falling, no clear majority...it makes for messy government. Just look at most of the countries with a true multi-party system.

I won't say the two party system we have now is perfect, but the alterative, IMHO, is a far worse choice. The grass is always greener until it becomes your lawn.

[Steve Hoffert]

Broken or not, the two-party system brings comfort in knowing that not much changes regardless of who wins for the most part. Radical ideas are not what get people elected in the United States. People are a creature of habit.

Not to mention systems with more than two parties are notoriously unstable. Coalition gov'ts, gov'ts falling, no clear majority...it makes for messy government. Just look at most of the countries with a true multi-party system.

I won't say the two party system we have now is perfect, but the alterative, IMHO, is a far worse choice. The grass is always greener until it becomes your lawn.

We really only have a one party system. The rhetoric is different but their overall actions are the same. The war in Iraq, they both fund it. The federal reserves monetary policy they both support it. The budget deficit, they both add to it. Their campaign funding sources..the same. NAFTA and other inequitable treaties, they both support them. They both worship the military industrial complex and certain corrupt foreign countries to save their sorry jobs.

People rip on Dennis Kucinich but he is one of few congressman that take the side of the common man on these issues (even if they can't comprehend it).

A little shake up is in order. If it takes an unstable government to change the status quo then so be it.

To put up with the current system because you are scared of change makes the people of this country their own enslavers and complicit with the crimes their government is committing.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Come on guys, this is a real gauge of voter dissatisfaction with specific offices. Not some loose gauge (and to be honest most of the ones mentioned are usually used as negative indicators of the voters, not the candidates).

Are you really that worried that you can not pick and campaign for a candidate that would lose to None of the Above?

I doubt None of the Above would ever win. Well, maybe once in awhile when all that is offered up is several very poor candidates.

I don't believe Lakewood City government would crumble.