NOTA (none-of-the-above)

NOTA and NOTO are an attempt to mix a notion of approval and ranking on one ballot. It was this same notion of approval + ranks (from Rob Richie, no less) that created SRV in the first place, and a score ballot is just a way better UI for expressing both things.

NOTO bugs me because it means I have to approve of candidates to express an opinion about them relative to each other. SRV lets me differentiate even between candidates I don't like.

Finally, it costs Lane County $250,000 to run an election. Any voting system that includes another election in the NOTA case will have a painful net fiscal impact that will materially affect the reform's ability to pass at the ballot box.

How about we just implement an election system that lets any number of qualified candidates compete?

NOTO bugs me because it means I have to approve of candidates to express an opinion about them relative to each other. SRV lets me differentiate even between candidates I don't like.

I agree with the concern thoroughly. That's what Sara said too, that NOTO is only okay if it still allows relative opinions.

So what do you think of my idea above? (quoted in part below)

score everyone just in terms of relative level of support, as makes sense for SRV. Then give a score for cancel-the-election. Basically: "I vote FOR canceling the election if any of the candidates I scored X or lower (such as 4 or 2 or 1 )"

@wolftune RE: Aaron's idea- as I understand it, to consider it NOTA if your max score given is lower than a set number.

For NOTA to work with SRV it has to be it's own separate box so that voters will still vote exactly how they would have if there was no NOTA option.

In SRV you should always give a max score to your favorite, even if they aren't that great. Its why we say BEST and WORST on the ballot as opposed to GOOD and BAD. Anything change that gave some voters an incentive to give low scores to everyone would totally ruin the accuracy of the election!

Exactly. Take a regular SRV ballot, add a place to mark a number where anyone below that number counts as a vote of no-confidence to cancel the election (and candidates at or above are considered "approved". For disapproved candidates, the preferential voting would be still counted in the case that they have a majority of voters approving them. Any candidates disapproved by the majority of ballots will be rejected entirely. If all candidates are rejected that way, nobody is elected.

Wait, you can't "approve" some candidates and still vote None Of The Above! That makes no sense.

So.. I'm gonna try here anyways against my better judgement... Are you saying now that if a candidate that you gave a score to, but that you don't actually approve of, gets into the runoff and wins, that elections officials would go back and see if a majority of voters had actually given that candidate a failing score? But that each voters failing score might be different? I'm not sure I follow.

Why not just vote as normal but also check a box for election self-destruct. If a majority check the box we all go back to start, do not pass go and do not collect $200?

RE Mark: I get Mark's concern that NOTA would be expensive and disastrous to try and pass if you were going to stick local areas with the bill. You'd have to have a fund for it. Some sort of trust that pays for itself with the interest or something? Get one bitter billionaire to pay for the whole thing?

As Alan pointed out, it's NOTO (None of the others) when you approve some.

Yes, I'm saying that the level any voter says is "approved" can vary. Some voters say they disapprove of all, some approve of all, some are mixed. Regardless, they want to relatively score every candidate.

I was suggesting that any candidate disapproved by a majority of voters is just gone, could be determined before the runoff happens. I.e. in order to get into the runoff, candidates need both majority approval and to be top scoring.

A few benefits:

• register approval/disapproval officially (even a candidate with majority approval gets shown the difference between unanimous approval versus widespread disapproval), something worth expressing
• the threat of cancelling the election potentially pushes parties to put up approvable candidates rather than lesser-evil ones
• we actually do want to cancel the election of candidates disapproved by the majority

As far as cost, it could be just that this seat is open again on the very next normal election in the locality rather than administering a new separate election. Could have a temporary seat-holder appointed or something.

What is the upside of having this feature?

Every election should have a winner. If none of the candidates are acceptable the people need to have a way to keep them out of power.

The other option is to have a mechanism for the people to call a special election if needed. What if for example something really bad comes out about the candidates during the election.

I don't think you should build this feature into SRV unless there was a way to do so that didn't complicate the ballot explanation at all. I like it as an amendment that would stand regardless of which voting system's in place.

Honestly, this seems like a distraction, and pretty much totally orthogonal to whatever voting method we push for. I would not want to ask the electorate the question "Should we have NOTO/NOTA?" at the same time we ask them, "Should we have SRV?" Seems like Seth sent you down a rabbit hole, @wolftune

I like the idea of NOTA/NOTO, it does mean you can reject the whole election. This is the Wonk Talk subgroup, not the discussion area for finalizing our immediate practical reform efforts. I want to see NOTO get discussed and researched and considered.