With Trump and Biden on the Ballot, Many Voters Prefer 'None of the Above'
Surprisingly strong support for "none of the above" in the 2024 primaries shows voters aren't thrilled with their options.
On Super Tuesday, as this issue went to press, voters in 15 states and one territory went to the polls and grudgingly validated the inevitable. America is in for another presidential election pitting Donald Trump against Joe Biden.
The following morning, Nikki Haley—Trump's one serious remaining Republican primary competitor—dropped out. But the real Super Tuesday runner-up is still in the race: "None of the above" made a surprisingly strong showing.
Nevada in the 1970s was the birthplace of many excellent ideas, and electoral reforms were no exception. The state's "none of these candidates" option was introduced in 1976, and it remains the bluntest ballot language in the category.
Due to a variety of byzantine complications—including the absence of Trump from the ballot and the existence of caucuses in addition to the primary—"none of these candidates" performed better than all the candidates listed in the February Nevada Republican primary this year. In fact, "none of these candidates" beat second-place Haley by 33 percentage points.
This year's GOP signals were mixed in Nevada—most of those votes were likely from Trump fans—but in the Democratic primary, which was a simpler case, "none of these candidates" still pulled a solid 5.6 percent. More importantly, the state's long history of the "none of these candidates" option has provided fodder for study. In a 2012 paper published in Political Research Quarterly, researchers from the University of Utah found that voters who checked that box on their ballots were sending "a less ambiguous signal of discontent than other nonvotes." In other words, the existence of the "none of these candidates" option allows researchers—and presumably office seekers—to better distinguish between the various reasons someone might opt not to vote for mainstream candidates.
Showing up to vote but refusing to vote for anyone who appears on the ballot takes effort, and can therefore be a powerful way for voters to convey their displeasure to decision makers.
It's no surprise that in a presidential contest that is shaping up to feature two well-known and historically unpopular candidates, interest in sending that "signal of discontent" was notable and noted on Super Tuesday.
Different states have different mechanisms for how they label, count, and interpret their "none of the above votes." The specific ballot language for that category varies: Minnesota voters have the "uncommitted" vote option on their primary ballots, while Massachusetts and North Carolina have a "no preference" option. Some variation appeared on the Democratic ballot in Alabama and Tennessee. After Super Tuesday, there were campaigns for the "uncommitted" vote in Georgia and Washington.
In the Colorado Democratic primary, voters were given the opportunity to select a "noncommitted delegate," signaling their reluctance to fully endorse any candidate. The option was added in December by party leadership with the goal of encouraging young voters to participate even if they were not fond of Biden. These noncommitted delegates have constraints on how they're allowed to vote at the convention, but they would have more autonomy than a committed delegate and could add more volatility and interest. This time around in Colorado, the noncommitted vote did not clear the 15 percent threshold for delegate representation, but more than 51,000 voters, or 8.9 percent, preferred the protest option.
Many of those who voted uncommitted in Democratic contests on Super Tuesday were backing a campaign to signal discontent with Joe Biden, particularly with respect to his handling of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. These voters were building on the surprising success of the "Listen to Michigan" campaign, which drew 101,000 uncommitted votes in the previous week's Michigan primary—largely from the state's significant population of Arab-American voters, but also from younger voters, who tend to be more disgruntled with Biden's foreign policy than elder partisans. Interestingly, a difficult-to-quantify subset of those voters were Armenian Americans, who are furious about an entirely different U.S. engagement abroad: ongoing aid to an increasingly genocidal Azerbaijan. Unlike Colorado, Michigan will send uncommitted delegates to the convention. Under Michigan's rules, those delegates are essentially free agents.
In another Super Tuesday state, Virginia, there was no "none of the above" option. In that state, protest voters were urged to vote for Marianne Williamson, who pulled 7.8 percent. How many of those voters were sincere Williamson fans rather than folks who were angry about Biden's foreign policy is hard to say. Having a real "none of the above" option would have allowed voters to more clearly signal their preferences.
In each of these states, you can tell a different story about what exactly the "none of the above" vote signals. The campaign around Biden's foreign policy is a somewhat unusual twist for this cycle, for example, but isn't unprecedented. For that reason, many electoral reform activists prefer to focus on different proposals, such as ranked choice voting, and activists may prefer to run single-issue candidates to allow voters to communicate the strength of their feelings on a particular topic. (The No Labels effort is a variation on that theme, in which voters could use that ticket in the general election to convey unhappiness with partisanship and polarization. Still, it shouldn't be confused with a "none of the above" vote.)
But at the most basic level, they all mean the same thing: Voters aren't thrilled with their options.
Research bears this out: A 2020 working paper published by the Vienna University of Economics and Business, based on surveys conducted in the weeks preceding the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the 2016 Austrian runoff election for president, found that manipulating ballots to include a "none of the above" option increased participation. It also diverted votes from "non-establishment candidates," which matches up with Virginia's results and may be a cautionary note for reformers who would prefer to juice the stats of third party options instead.
"None of the above," the researchers explain, is "chosen more frequently by voters with a protest motive, who are either unhappy with the candidate set or with the political establishment in general"—an increasingly common condition as the post-primary portion of 2024's election starts to take off.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I suspect when Koch-funded libertarians vote Biden they will only do so strategically and reluctantly.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
This country has always had a thing about “cheap” labor.
Interesting take. Republicans vote “none of the above” when Trump isn’t on the ballot and Democrats express substantial distaste for their party’s sitting president in a primary where the Democrats (as per usual) effectively rigged it for their preferred candidate.
Given this situation we are supposed to assume that the public hates both of these guys equally. It doesn’t follow. Functionally, it probably does work out that democrat hatred of Trump (ginned up by a dishonest media) levels the playing field a bit since Democrats circle the wagons behind whoever is nominated for them regardless of how distasteful or unqualified the candidate is.
Given my choice of the guy who signed off on trillions of dollars so Fauci could attempt to rule over my life or the guy who came in after and said that wasn’t good enough; I’m going to vote for the Argentinian with the chainsaw.
Your move LP, but if you nominate a branch covidian, well I’m sticking with the chainsaw.
https://notthebee.com/article/this-man-changed-his-name-to-literally-anybody-else-and-hes-running-for-president-of-the-united-states
Traditionally you vote for an uncommitted delegate not necessarily because you’re dissatisfied with all the candidates, but to preserve your bloc’s leverage to extract more concessions from one of them to get the nomination at the convention. “Uncommitted” can as easily mean you like several of the candidates as that you dislike them all.
Fantasy aside, you will still have to choose one of the two viable candidates.
So actually read the party platforms, and vote for the party that least infringes on your personal freedoms.
(and remember, not voting is the same as voting for the other guy)
Nope. I’m all done voting against the greater of two evils. I’ll register to vote again once there’s someone I can vote for.
Jack Daniel’s?
Isn’t that a little too premium for Sarc? He only drinks bottom shelf liquor. Or turpentine in a pinch.
He makes toilet wine, from his time in the joint.
Right, not voting but defending Biden and any other Dem at any cost. Such a stunning and brave ally.
Sure dude. The fact that you defend Trump and Republicans at any cost doesn’t mean people who criticize your team are defending the other team. That’s just pure projection on your part. Fuck Joe, fuck Donald, and fuck you.
Ideas!
I voted for both of the other guys
Is this election so different though? I can remember as far back as the 1980 election where my dad said he didn’t like the two choices available at the time (Reagan and Carter). You are never going to have a ballot choice so clear where it’s Jesus on one side and Satan on the other side. You always have to go with the slightly better of two less than perfect options.
You always have to go with the slightly better of two less than perfect options.
No you don’t. My parents voted Anderson in 1980.
Read Deuteronomy and then tell me you aren’t going to vote for Satan.
Here is my proposal- we make “None of the Above” an actual candidate in every federal election. If it wins, the office is simply closed for a year. If it is in the legislature, it is simply an automatic “no” vote on every piece of legislation. If it is the President, it is an automatic veto on every piece of legislation. No final rules or guidance can be issued from any executive office when NotA is President, and all executive budgets automatically shrink by 10% (actually shrink, not a decrease in increase). Any judicial vacancies simply stay vacant.
At the end of a year, we can have another vote to see if either side has a candidate who can actually get votes.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
That would be great!
Neither of the two major parties seems interested in actually solving what matters to most voters.
Like the “Third Party Doctrine” that essentially destroyed the Fourth Amendment without the required constitutional-amendment process.
99.9% of Americans didn’t have computers or the internet when the “Third Party” rule was invented by the U.S. Supreme.
Today in 2024, this unconstitutional practice allows automakers, internet providers or any third party to share our personal information with almost anyone and allows warrantless domestic spying which violates the Fourth Amendment.
Neither party is addressing the unsustainable national debt that our children and grandchildren will have to deal with, in addition to consumer debt and student loan debt.
In 2024, there are still about 1 million persons worldwide wrongly blacklisted by exploiting 9/11 (according to the ACLU). Guantanamo Bay is still open in 2024, making it the world’s most expensive prison, more expensive than a Supermax prison. Neither party has solved this in over 20 years. These illegal unconstitutional programs have also corrupted the domestic justice system here at home.
We have a theocratic Speaker of the House in Congress that has previously disobeyed U.S. Supreme Court rulings on constitutionality (“Lawrence v. Texas” etc). Something his oath of office prohibits him from doing.
Seems like Biden and the Democrats could easily solve these problems today and easily win if they wanted to.
Just for the record, the ACLU is not a reliable source.
And hasn’t been since their founding, but is progressively less so as they age.
Watching the DEMS’ pet geezer floundering in the lake is pretty pathetic. Their planks promising to ban all energy conversion, put pederasts in kids’ bathrooms, tax and squander are the equivalent of an anvil. Watching a swimmer drowning in a lake because the fool won’t let go of that anvil (like the MAGAts won’t let go of shooting kids over birth control and plant leaves) is at best a live demo of Spencerian Natural Selection. The consolation is that once they’re gone, objectivist libertarians will inherit the Constitution.
Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump all over again. More people effectively voted for neither than votes for either candidate. That’s no way to run a Democracy that mandates that “somebody” has to be in office.
In 2020, Trump got 12 million more votes than he did in 2016.
Improper fortifications.
Now if only they actually allowed None Of The Above (NOTA) to win elections.
A plan for an effective NOTA option:
1. If NOTA wins, the office remains vacant and a do-over election is immediately scheduled.
2. All candidates who lost to NOTA in the original election are barred from running in the do-over.
…barred from ever running again.
90 days in the electric chair.
I would prefer NOTA assume office for the term and it is presumed all Bill’s are vetoed automatically. Let them take a second vote to override the veto in all cases.
I’d start voting again if that was enacted.
(Relatively) good times for disaffected misfits and can’t-keep-up culture war casualties!
Just like when I watched a bunch of losers at a Rand Paul rally get whipped into a lather to the point at which they not only forgot that they were antisocial rejects but actually came to believe, as they chanted and cheered, that Rand Paul was going to be elected president.
At least for a moment, those dumbasses got to feel somewhat normal and even relevant, which I suppose doesn’t hurt anyone.
The hurting is actually done by (and to) the cops they order to enforce the prohibition and Comstock laws they pass.
Hey. LOTS of girl-bullying Comstock Republicans have been elected president.
It all boils down to the same thing: the two-party system is not only intended from the beginning to favor power-loving, elitist politicians, but it’s also becoming increasingly broken down as more and more people see through the propaganda and behind the curtain.
It’s more posturing by the uber woke democrats, they will obediently vote for the regime in November, but it isn’t going to matter.
Knowing the looter Kleptocracy, I expect they’ll put “None Of The Above” at the TOP of the ballots!
The only thing wrong with Nevada’s “none of these candidates” option is that the office isn’t left unoccupied if “none of the candidates” wins.
Full disclosure: I lived in Nevada when “none of the candidates” became an option. I voted it more than once.