Sunday, June 24, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
We asked readers for their views on the only-in-Nevada ballot provision "none of the above." Here's a sampling of the comments:
A vote for ‘none’ is a vote to reform campaign process
I am for “none of the above.” I believe it makes a statement of dissatisfaction. When I was living in Florida, I purposely chose not to vote for either candidate of a local race due to their overly negative ads against each other. But there was no way for me to show that I was not voting for a reason.
Having “none of the above” shows that I did not forget or accidently skip a vote but that I did think about it and thought neither candidate was right. If more people did this, possibly there would be no winner, and maybe those who run for office would get the message: Stop putting down your opponent and just tell me what you’ll do for me.
Marla Goldberg, Las Vegas
Dissatisfaction could turn into real change
We need to ask ourselves which is more important to our country’s future — the millions who mindlessly vote along party lines as well as millions more who cast their votes based upon nothing other than a candidate’s charisma, or people who vote “none” out of conviction that both political offerings are part of the same system run by “political machines” that feature favoritism, cronyism and corruption, all of which have brought us to our knees.
What, I ask, can speak louder and have more of an impact on our country’s future than a majority that votes “none”? You may also want to consider what could happen if the millions of “apathetic voters” (who, by default, are voting “none” by staying away from the polls) suddenly got up and made their “none” votes official. It’s difficult to project the outcome of such an event, but one cannot disregard the notion that it could spark a new American revolution.
Fred Bilello, Laughlin
It’s a shame the vote doesn’t have more impact
I’ve been a registered voter in Nevada for over 25 years. I have voted for “none of the above” a few times hoping that “none of the above” would win so that we could save their pay and the cost of their staff. Having “none of the above” in office would not do the many things that hurt the average guy.
When I found out that “none of the above” was not allowed to win, I switched to voting for the lesser of two evils. I like having the choice on the ballot. I just wish it could win.
Bill Robb, Las Vegas
Lawsuit is an attempt to trick voters
“None” is a legitimate choice. It is the same difference whether a voter selects “none” on the ballot or skips voting for certain races or issues. The irony is that the lawsuit would disenfranchise voters (i.e., restrict their rights) by removing the choice “none.”
Valid reasons that voters would select “none” are: to register dissatisfaction with the choices and/or to refrain from making an ill-informed choice.
This lawsuit attempts to manipulate voters. Some prominent Republicans are among the filers who believe that without “none” on the ballot, voters will choose candidates instead, “including Gov. (Mitt) Romney and Sen. (Dean) Heller.” It’s a shame to waste resources, especially the taxpayers’, on such frivolity. However, the truth is worth defending.
Pam Price, Henderson