The motivies of the plantiffs are certainly questionable, but I have to agree with their premise. If none of the above were to win, I think it's only right that all of the candidate running should lose and a follow up election take place. If they can't beat the option "none of the above" then they don't deserve to be in office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/9th-circuit-tosses-gop-challenge-to-nevadas-none-of-the-above-voting-option/2013/07/10/45a0fe50-e9bb-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_story.html
Quote
9th Circuit tosses GOP challenge to Nevada's "none of the above" voting option
By Associated Press,
CARSON CITY, Nev. — "None of the above," Nevada's perpetual ballot loser, got a legal victory Wednesday and will continue to be an option for voters after a federal appeals court rejected a Republican-backed lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, ruling that the 11 plaintiffs lacked standing.
Nevada is the only state in the nation that that gives voters the option of "none of these candidates" in statewide races — president, U.S. Senate, state constitutional offices and the Nevada Supreme Court.
But under state law "none" can never win even if it receives the most votes, though it can play spoiler.
Republicans sued last year over the law, fearing "none" could siphon votes from a disgruntled electorate and sway the outcome of a close 2012 presidential and Nevada U.S. Senate race.
The suit argued "none" disenfranchises voters because it has no legal bearing on an election. In legal briefs, attorney Paul Swen Prior argued that votes for "none" are treated as "legal nullities" under the law, while voters who choose "none" are disenfranchised because their choice has no legal standing on the outcome.
Secretary of State Ross Miller, Nevada's chief election officer, however, hailed the ruling as "a triumph for Nevada voters."
"Voters who want to express their dissatisfaction with the federal and statewide candidates on the ballot should have the option and freedom to do it," Miller said.
The suit argued that to be constitutional, Nevada's election law should give more legal weight to "none" by allowing it to win and setting up a process for voters to then decide on another living candidate, such as declaring a vacancy or having a follow-up election.
But the appellate judges, while making no determination on the merits of those arguments, said the plaintiffs' positions "are questionable."
The "none" option has been on the ballot in Nevada since 1976. It was enacted by the Legislature the previous year as a way to combat voter apathy in the wake of the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. The intent was to give voters a way to voice their displeasure with candidates and elected officials at the ballot box.
"None" has never received the most votes in a general election but is often a popular choice that can and has played spoiler in high-profile races.
It wasn't a factor in last year's hard-fought president contest between President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney. But it played a familiar role in Nevada's U.S. Senate race between Republican Sen. Dean Heller and Democratic challenger Shelley Berkley, a seven-term congresswoman.
Heller defeated Berkley by about 12,000 votes. More than 45,000 votes were cast for "none."
In 1998, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid defeated then Republican Rep. John Ensign by 428 votes, but more than 8,000 voters rejected both men and opted for "none.
Ninth Circus strikes again!
What Constitutional right is in play here?
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 07:13:14 PM
Ninth Circus strikes again!
The Ninth Silly Republicans Circus, in this case.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 07:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2013, 09:11:49 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 07:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2013, 09:11:49 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 07:21:56 PM
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.
Ok Jimmy let's think about this for a second.
Assume that the most popular candidates for office X are candidates 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. There is a two party system with primaries. 3 and 4 lose to 1 and 2 in the primary. But in the general election NOTA edges out 1 and 2.
Under the Jimmy system 1 and 2 are now disqualified from running. The most popular candidates now eligible are 3 and 4. But the people of Nevada prefer candidates 1 and 2 to both of them. Why does it make any sense to force them to vote for less preferred candidates? Why does it make sense to allow the NOTA voters to effectively undo the primary results?
Also what happens if the NOTA voters in election round 2, which is likely, because by definition the remaining candidates are even less popular than the ones previously outvoted by NOTA? How many rounds of elections and disqualifications do you run?
Don't even try to explain, JR. Tim has an innate understanding of stupid.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 10:22:51 AM
Ok Jimmy let's think about this for a second.
Assume that the most popular candidates for office X are candidates 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. There is a two party system with primaries. 3 and 4 lose to 1 and 2 in the primary. But in the general election NOTA edges out 1 and 2.
Under the Jimmy system 1 and 2 are now disqualified from running. The most popular candidates now eligible are 3 and 4. But the people of Nevada prefer candidates 1 and 2 to both of them. Why does it make any sense to force them to vote for less preferred candidates? Why does it make sense to allow the NOTA voters to effectively undo the primary results?
Also what happens if the NOTA voters in election round 2, which is likely, because by definition the remaining candidates are even less popular than the ones previously outvoted by NOTA? How many rounds of elections and disqualifications do you run?
It is not a given that the candidates that win the primaries are the most popular statewide. In fact this has been demonstrated in at least half a dozen recent senate races. The extreme minority that turns out for the GOP primary nominates a conservative that can't win, while a moderate who would be favored to win is sidelined. NOTA could be a mechanism to get around the overly partisan primary process and elect the candidate that the satewide electorate actually wants.
PDH, how about you pull your head out of your ass and stop being such a rabid one trick pony where my posts are concerned.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront.mediamatters.org%2Fstatic%2Fuploader%2Fimage%2F2013%2F07%2F10%2FIMG_0875.jpg&hash=19b5400f64f38505d9500375726f34560b7d131d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront.mediamatters.org%2Fstatic%2Fuploader%2Fimage%2F2013%2F07%2F10%2FIMG_0874.jpg&hash=5954359630c0e89953f6c38432be2263502f6ee7)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2013, 10:42:20 AM
PDH, how about you pull your head out of your ass and stop being such a rabid one trick pony where my posts are concerned.
The commander pulls away from the periscope and announces to the crew, "Gentlemen, we have scored a hit."
The sub continues with silent running for the next torpedo run.
Now all we need is a button to punch "None of the Above" for all races and we're set.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 11, 2013, 11:44:32 AM
Now all we need is a button to punch "None of the Above" for all races and we're set.
A straight "none of the above" ballot would be pretty awesome
Quote from: Siege on July 11, 2013, 10:45:15 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront.mediamatters.org%2Fstatic%2Fuploader%2Fimage%2F2013%2F07%2F10%2FIMG_0874.jpg&hash=5954359630c0e89953f6c38432be2263502f6ee7)
I do like the Dollar Store balloon weight. Adds much-needed flair.
Siege, are you a lefty secret agent by any chance? Cause otherwise why are you posting all those retarded slogans? :hmm:
Seeb, that stuff really is retarded.
Tim seems spunky lately.
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:18:35 PM
Tim seems spunky lately.
Nerd rage. It happens from time to time.
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.
Quote from: Siege on July 11, 2013, 01:40:03 PM
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?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2013, 09:11:49 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 07:21:56 PM
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.
We also settle election ties by drawing cards, remember. :P
No Tim, just no. Voting 'None of the above' is the sort of thing an idiot or coward would do.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2013, 10:42:20 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2013, 10:08:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2013, 09:11:49 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 07:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 05:53:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2013, 10:42:20 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2013, 06:03:54 PM
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.