There has been a major embarrassment for the Nevada Democrats in their primary for Governor, with ‘None of these candidates’ winning the poll. In fact, it wasn’t even close, NOTA getting 29.96%, and the leading candidate only pulling 24.9%.
Libertarian Republican is reporting that only one candidate beat NOTC in any county, his home one, and by a narrow margin.
Unfortunately, this does not mean that there will be no Democrat standing in November, nor does it requite a new ballot, the second placed candidate will be nominated to stand:
"None of the Above" won with 29.96% of the vote. Nevada was the first state to institute a “none of the above” line to its ballot in 1975, as a way for voters to protest weak, unqualified candidates.
Senator Harry Reid, who runs the Democrat party in Nevada with an iron fist, told reporters earlier this year, that the candidate to run against the popular Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, would be "a respectable Democrat and someone that people know." …
… Second place went to Robert Goodman, a retired state economic development commissioner, who got 24.9% of the vote. Since "none of the above" can't win under state law, virtual unknown, Goodman will be the nominee.
There is probably little point in standing a Democrat there given the extreme embarrassment associated with the ballot with their candidate clearly not meeting the expectations of the electorate. His acceptance speech should probably start with, “Boy, is my face red.”
Libertarians have long favored the idea of a ‘None of these candidates’, or ‘none of the above’ option in ballots to allow voters the option of letting the parties know that they are dissatisfied with the quality of the candidates on offer.
Parties tend to promote hacks or shills who can be relied on to toe the party line, good, or bad, while voters have to put up with whichever idiot is the least worst option for the term of the elected body. The libertarian position though, is that in the event of NOTA winning, a new election should be called with those candidates excluded, or that the position should be left vacant, or unfunded.
The then Australian libertarian party, the Progress party first called for this option in 1980 when Viv Forbes made the following statement:
“Election ‘illusion’,” The Canberra Times, April 21, 1980, p. 9.The Progress Party yesterday called for an amendment to the Electoral Act to allow voters the choice of “none of the above” in all Federal, State and local elections.
The national secretary of the party, Mr Viv Forbes, said that until voters could say “no” to all candidates, the voting system was an illusion of free choice.
“To many people at the ballot box, the decision is as significant as the choice between arsenic and rat poison,” he said.
“If a significant percentage of people vote ‘no’ to all candidates, it would indicate massive public disapproval of the policies of them all.”