I am ending my blog vacation a bit early as I felt the need to comment on a recent trend. I have heard again and again about this rather silly "None of the above" proposal. It sounds nice, but in reality it will fix nothing, and will never be passed in any event.

Basically, as I understand it, the idea is to add "none of the above" as an option during elections. The proponents I have heard are a little vague on the details, but it appears the aim is to leave the seat empty should "none of the above" win. It seems to be mentioned mostly in terms of national elections, and so I will limit my comments to its use in those races. It will not work on a state level either, for many of the same reasons, but for the moment I am sticking to national races only.

So, why is "none of the above" such a bad idea? Because it is simply unworkable. What do these people think will happen if "none of the above" wins? The seat will sit vacant for two or four or six years? Hardly. No state will allow any of its national representative positions to remain empty, and no legislature would pass a law that would ensure a loss of state representation.So, there are three possibilities. First, the seat would be considered "empty", which would mean the governor or legislature would appoint a replacement. Second, the current officeholder, if any, would continue on to another term. Third, a new election would be held.

Let us look at those. The first, obviously, is hardly an incentive to run good candidates. If people vote "none of the above" they are effectively just voting to turn over the selection to whatever local officials fill vacant seats. The second option is even worse, as it is the exact opposite of the "throw them all out" mentality which is behind the "none of the above" movement. Only the final really seems to be even close to what the movement wants, but it still won't work. Think about it, the second election will just be a repeat of the first. The parties won't run new primaries, and even if they do, they will likely get similar results. So, what will be the outcome? We will spend a lot of money on a second or third election, and in the end, tired voters will finally give in and take one of the original bad choices. No real improvement.

So, what can we do?

I originally thought about proposing open ballots, allowing anyone to get his name on any ballot, and I still think that is a good idea for other reasons, but if third party candidates are not enough to break the choke hold of the two major parties, I doubt adding what amount to a few more third party candidates will do anything other than clutter the ballots. For any number of reasons, our history shows that American politics has pretty effectively enshrined a two party system, and no amount of reform is going to create a multiparty or nonpartisan system.

So, in reality, there is very little we can do. Or very little that will provide a quick fix that most people seem to want. As I said before, people are impatient, and seem to want a magic fix that will make everything better. That is at the bottom of the "none of the above" movement, the belief that some magic bullet will give us good candidates.

It won't.

The solution IS simple, but it is also slow, and tedious, and requires some effort on our part, which makes it unappealing to most. And it is practical and boring, and so it doesn't make good copy in the press or on blogs. Unfortunately, the truth rarely does.

The solution is to work with our neighbors, and the other members of our party, to support good candidates, to make sure they run for nominations, that they have the proper grass roots support, that they get good word of mouth and that they eventually win the nomination. And if our candidates don't win, then our job is to make sure that we get out there and find out why, and educate other party members, and make sure that the goal of our party are properly spelled out and that other party members understand why the candidates we support should be nominated based on those beliefs.

It is boring, it is slow, and it lacks the drama or flair of most quick fixes. But it has the one advantage of actually working, so I must stand behind it.

NOTE

As I said before, there is one political fix which would help, and that is eliminating the silliness of "open" primaries. But that only makes sense. And it does not eliminate the need to support good candidates, or persuading fellow party members. Unfortunately the tedious grunt work will remain whether or not we eliminate open primaries.

ADDENDUM

If you think about it, this movement is kind of funny. Taking them at face value, they are arguing for their right to not be represented in congress. In other words, where our ancestors fought and died for the principle that every man deserves representation in the governing body, these people are getting worked up over their right to not be represented.

How odd.