9th Circuit tosses GOP challenge to Nevada’s “none of the above” voting option

[Eddie Teach]

Siege, are you a lefty secret agent by any chance? Cause otherwise why are you posting all those retarded slogans? 

[Admiral Yi]

Seeb, that stuff really is retarded.

[garbon]

Tim seems spunky lately.

[derspiess]

Tim seems spunky lately.

Nerd rage.  It happens from time to time.

[Siege]

Well, that was from Glenn Beck's "The Man on the Moon" theatrical show.
I used to like Glenn Beck, then he became all about religion, and by now he is just another millenialist.

[Razgovory]

Well, that was from Glenn Beck's "The Man on the Moon" theatrical show.
I used to like Glenn Beck, then he became all about religion, and by now he is just another millenialist.

Favors anti-semites.  You really can't pick them, can you?

[Agelastus]

What Constitutional right is in play here?

I'm not sure there is one. Nevertheless, I philosophically agree with the plantiffs. I think there's not much point to the "none of the above" option if it doesn't have an actual effect on the election. It would be much better if, in the case of the option winning, there was a follow up election where the previous candidates were barred from participating.

There's absolutely no point in barring previous candidates; apart from the iffyness of depriving someone of part of their democratic rights (that being to stand for office) in a situation where NOTA has "won" a vote most of the candidates would either choose not to run again or be ousted by their party anyway.

On the other hand I can see the merits of your basic proposition that NOTA winning should force a rerun since as it stands NOTA has exactly as much value as the more traditional "protest tactic" of spoiling your ballot or simply not showing up to vote at all. In other words, no value at all.

[MadImmortalMan]

We also settle election ties by drawing cards, remember. 

[Neil]

No Tim, just no.  Voting 'None of the above' is the sort of thing an idiot or coward would do.

[The Minsky Moment]

It is not a given that the candidates that win the primaries are the most popular statewide.

It is not a given.  It could be otherwise.  But it also could not be and if it isn't the Jimmy plan can completely break down and give no result.  That is not acceptable institutional design.

[Razgovory]

What Constitutional right is in play here?

I'm not sure there is one. Nevertheless, I philosophically agree with the plantiffs. I think there's not much point to the "none of the above" option if it doesn't have an actual effect on the election. It would be much better if, in the case of the option winning, there was a follow up election where the previous candidates were barred from participating.

The elected representatives of the people of the state of Nevada disagree with you.
Barring a constitutional violation, that ends the question as far as the courts are concerned.

So what? Just because it doesn't violate the constitution and the legislature approves doesn't mean it isn't a stupid policy.

I'm not sure if it's the court's concern if you have stupid policy or not.

[jimmy olsen]

It is not a given that the candidates that win the primaries are the most popular statewide.

It is not a given.  It could be otherwise.  But it also could not be and if it isn't the Jimmy plan can completely break down and give no result.  That is not acceptable institutional design.

Seems extremely unlikely that if the candidates are most popular statewide that NOAT will win. It's never happened yet.

[The Minsky Moment]

Seems extremely unlikely that if the candidates are most popular statewide that NOAT will win. It's never happened yet.

Indeed NOTA has never won.  So the very likely the problem you are concerned about fixing does not exist.  But under your proposal in the very unlikely event NOTA wins, you vastly increase the likelihood that an impasse will occur.