None of the above

[GregoryHofer]

I don't believe RONR addresses the topic of "none of the above" being

listed on the ballot but I wanted to get what I believe would be your
expert opinions on that matter.

I would like to make a Bylaw Amendment that my Union be required to automatically

include a non binding voting option on any Union voting ballot that allows our Members to

check a box that states "None of the above". 

Here are some of the benefits to this concept. Please tell me any downsides you might see.

All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; "None of the Above" gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a "No" vote on a ballot question.

Would end the "must hire" elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar "lesser evil.".

It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy.

Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote for "none of the above".

Provides an effective alternative to the increasing voter practice of writing-in frivolous names, the so-called “Mickey Mouse” option.

The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote..

Office holders, knowing they face "None of the Above" in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate.

Even when "None of the Above" does not win or is a non-binding NOTA, the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner's mandate.

 

[jstackpo]

How long can you get by with nobody holding a particular office? Who is gonna sign checks when you have no treasurer?

[Dan Honemann]

The bylaws of an organization specify those officers that the organization is required to have in order to function properly, and thus impose an obligation on the part of the voters to elect them. For this reason, RONR (11th ed., on page 414, lines 1-5) says that "In elections, 'for' and 'against' spaces or boxes should not be used. They are applicable only with respect to votes on motions. In an election, a voter can vote against one candidate only by voting for another who has been nominated or by writing in the name of another candidate." And then again, on page 430, lines 10-16, RONR makes it clear that "... a form of ballot on which provision is made for voting 'for' or 'against' a candidate or candidates, as distinguished from a motion, is not proper. Since such a ballot is improper, in order to defeat a candidate for an office it is necessary to vote for an opposing candidate, thus avoiding the anomaly of an assembly refusing to elect anyone to an office."

 

A bylaw provision such as the one suggested introduces an inconsistency into the bylaws, and appears designed to encourage irresponsibility on the part of voters and just such an anomaly as RONR refers to on page 430 (but, since I don't really know what is meant by "a non binding voting option", perhaps all it will introduce is some sort of ambiguity).

[Josh Martin]

I would like to make a Bylaw Amendment that my Union be required to automatically

include a non binding voting option on any Union voting ballot that allows our Members to check a box that states "None of the above". 

Here are some of the benefits to this concept. Please tell me any downsides you might see.

 

I'm not very persuaded by the benefits of this, since under RONR, members have the right to vote for any eligible candidate, regardless of whether that candidate has been nominated or is listed on the ballot. Since under RONR, anyone is eligible, that's a pretty broad array of options. Additionally, RONR requires a majority vote for election. If enough members are dissatisfied with the candidates on the ballot and cast a wide array of write-in votes (possibly voting for themselves), no candidate will receive a majority and a second round of voting will be taken. This will allow members time to try and find a suitable candidate. The assembly may also postpone the election to an adjourned meeting if they feel they need yet more time to find a suitable candidate.

 

I'm not sure exactly what the downsides are as I'm unsure what would happen in the event that "None of the Above" received a majority of the votes cast - and that's something the society should consider when adopting such a rule. If it would mean another round of balloting and therefore just delay the election, it seems pointless, since there are other ways to accomplish that. If it would actually mean that no one would be elected at that time, that seems highly problematic, as presumably it is important for the society to actually have officers.