20181206.0430

On 2 December 208, Craig Riley's "Put 'None of the Above' on the Ballot" appeared in the online San Antonio Express-News. In the article, Riley responds to Express-News reporting about the proportion of party-affiliated and -unaffiliated and suggests that a "None of the above" option should be added to general electoral ballots. Riley then expands upon the idea, noting problems with it intermixed with benefits; he also remarks upon his increasing dissatisfaction with the higher-level races. Ultimately, the author notes the unlikelihood of his idea coming to fruition--it is not directly achievable, and elected officials are not apt to make changes that imperil their reelection--but it is an entertaining idea, at least.
It's not the first time I've seen such an idea; I recall reading it before, though I cannot recall where at this point. It would, as the author asserts, allow ballots to reflect the opinions of those who cast them; many of those who do not vote likely don't because they find none of the options on the ballot desirable or palatable. (I know many are prevented from voting by other circumstances; I do not cast aspersion on those people. But I also believe in 1) voting against people and 2) damage mitigation when that is the available option. So there are those towards whom I am not sanguine.) But that's part of the rub, as well; there are already mechanisms for parties to select preferable candidates and for those who dislike all of them on the ballot to make their dislike known. The notion that a "None of the above" option would prompt better candidate selection thus rings as relatively naïve; losing election after election has not prompted selecting better candidates as it is, so losing another way is not like to, either.
It will remain thus as long as people are voting based on party rather than person or platform--and even after, like as not. As long as people align in such ways, chiefly based on party but not seldom based upon a cult of opprobrium, they will find any candidate acceptable as long as that candidate is not that other asshole; they will find any candidate acceptable as long as the party approves him or her--because s/he's not the other party's candidate. The 2016 election showed it abundantly; the 2018 elections were much the same, if perhaps slightly less vitriolic. (Perhaps. Slightly.)
But Riley's concluding statement is spot-on. There is a lot of room for things to change for the better. That laws--even the highest--can be amended is an acknowledgement that change may be needed, that things are not yet as they ought to be. And while the ability to change necessarily means there is an ability for things to get worse--and they can always get worse; never challenge the universe for how, as it will oblige--there is always the chance that things will go otherwise and improve. It may not be a big chance, given human nature; if offered stupidity, most people will engage in it. But it is still a chance.