The "Un-Vote?"

One of the local television stations here was running a promo about an upcoming story on one of their newscasts: is it a good idea to include the option, “None of the Above” on ballots?

I didn’t get to see the actual newscast — I was working, after all — but it seems that there are people who think it’s a fabulous idea. Are you one of them?

Vote in the poll on the sidebar, then feel free to discuss in the comments here. Is “None of the Above” a valid option for a ballot? Is it worth standing in line at a polling place to then essentially vote for no one? And what happens if that option actually wins?

What do you think?

the authorPatrick
Patrick is a Christian with more than 30 years experience in professional writing, producing and marketing. His professional background also includes social media, reporting for broadcast television and the web, directing, videography and photography. He enjoys getting to know people over coffee and spending time with his dog.


  • The problem is that if “none of the above” wins, then what do you do?
    It’s a silly notion, anyway…. If you can’t find anyone on the ballot who you want to vote for, then you just don’t vote for any of them! Simple!
    The whole thing is absurd! It seems to be based on the idea that all of the candidates are the same and no good. I think the fact that this point of view is becoming more popular is what needs to be addressed….

  • There is already a “none of the above” option. Simply don’t vote for anyone for that particular office, while filling out the remainder of the ballot. An undervote carries with it the same message and eliminates the risk of leaving the office unelected.

  • Voting “none of the above” would be no different that staying on your couch in front of the TV on election day. An absolute waste of a ballot. See, here’s the thing: “none of the above” can’t take up a senate seat on your behalf. “None of the above” cannot cast a vote in congress for you.

    Some might say that voting “none of the above” makes a statement. But, really, what kind of statement does it make? Someone has to be elected. If 99% of the voters voted “none of the above, the candidate that received 1% of the vote would still win the election.

    In Canada, it used to be acceptable to decline your ballot. The returning officers were required to tabulate the number of declined ballots, and that number was recorded along with the final totals in the election results. But so what? So what if a significant number of people saw fit to take the trouble to go to the polling station only to decline their ballot? Yes, they made a statement, but in the end, someone was elected, and formed a government, and if you declined your ballot, effectively voting “none of the above,” you had no say in who that turned out to be.

Comments are closed.