Voters need ballot option if candidates are unworthy

Thursday, February 23, 2006

MIKE HARDEN

 

I was standing outside The Dispatch yesterday listening to the avian squawking from atop the Statehouse across the street.

 

The amplified cries of birds of prey broadcast from the Statehouse are intended to frighten off pigeons, which roost on the cupola and befoul the hallowed structure with their evacuations.

 

It seems to be working on all but a few brave or deaf birds.

 

Full column at:

http://dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/02/23/20060223-B1-02.html

Pros:  (In theory) Better canidates, in touch with the constituents

Cons: Could leave offices empty for extended periods (how quick a turn-around should a new election be?)

 

As of right now, I would be in favor of a "None of the above" option.       

If nothing else, get this idea out in the public for debate.  There has to be more pros & cons to this idea than what I thought of.

I think it would work well if applied to a primary election.  It would, I think, do two things:

 

1. Force the parties to put up better candidates.

2. In doing so, force both the parties and candidates to be more accountable to the voters and address issues of substance.

 

I can't see this working well in an issue election for a school levy or whatever.  I agree that it would not work in a final election vote for the reasons stated above.  But this could really work well in a primary.  Wouldn't it be nice to start with a ballot like:

 

Choose one:

Kenneth Blackwell  ______

James Petro          ______

None of the above  ______

Sounds expensive.

Possibly, if it forces a re-run of a primary.  But the cost for that should be at least the partial burden of the political parties if "none-of-the-above" wins.  Let them feel the financial pain a few times and I think that will force the parties to rethink how they select and vette candidates and avoid the embarrassment and expense of a re-run primary.

 

I would make it part of the enabling legislation that if your party's candidates lose to "none-of-the-above" you (the party in question) must bear at least half of the cost of a special election. 

 

On a side note; I once lived in Omaha, Nebraska and covered (as a reporter) a primary election for mayor that included the incumbent and two challengers from his party, including a local gadfly (read: "pest") who was always getting media attention and constantly overstating his appeal and political powerbase. A couple of local FM-radio rock jocks (Otis Twelve and Diver Dan Doomey... whom I think were fairly "chemically" inspired), mounted an on-air campaign for one of their radio skit characters .... "Space Commander Wack" .... as a write in candidate for Mayor.  Long story short:  Space Commander Wack got more votes than the above-described gadfly.  He was never heard from in public again after that.

 

But Otis Twelve is still alive and kicking and has his own website:  http://otistwelve.com/about.html

There have been plenty of times where I have voted for nobody.  In other words, just because someone is on the ballot doesn't mean they deserve a vote.

 

I usually vote for nobody in local races for judge where people run unopposed.  I also failed to vote for county sheriff Leis, who always runs unopposed because people are afraid of him.  F**k that, no vote for you....

There have been plenty of times where I have voted for nobody.  In other words, just because someone is on the ballot doesn't mean they deserve a vote.

 

But you can't quantify non-votes.  You can count a none-of-the-above vote.