Heads, Tails or None of the Above

July 19, 2007 — -- No more flipping coins. Kiss eeny meeny miny moe goodbye. Here's a new ballot choice: none of the above.

At least, that's the option that retired Cape Cod systems analyst William White wants to give Massachusetts voters.

White testified before state lawmakers Wednesday on behalf of legislation he drafted that would add "None of the above: for a new election" below the names of every candidate on Massachusetts ballots except those running in the constitutionally protected presidential race.

"My interest is really in enhancing the democratic nature of the political process," White, the director of voters for None of the Above, told ABC News. "I feel one of the most fundamental things we can do is give voters the choice to reject all candidates."

Under White's proposal, if none of the candidates for a particular office received a plurality and the "None of the above" option did, a new election would be held two months later that excluded the original field's losing candidates.

So many races go uncontested in Massachusetts, according to White, that a "None of the above" option would force parties to put up more viable candidates. White, a registered independent, said the bill is rooted squarely in reviving the democratic process and has nothing to do with partisan politics.

He admits that there's little appetite for such a significant change in voting among lawmakers -- but he's considering the effort more marathon than sprint.

"This is a major change to the electoral process, so it's going to take time," he said. "And I think it should take time."

About 10 years ago, a flurry of "None of the above" efforts occurred in the states, none of which resulted in electoral changes. But just this week, an Associated Press/Ipsos poll found that a plurality of Republican voters are still unwilling to pick a favorite among presidential candidates, suggesting that a "None of the above" choice would actually be the top vote getter if the election were held today.

But even while the two lawmakers sponsoring the bill for White celebrated his civic activism, they also found substantive problems with his bill and said it's very unlikely to get much support at the state house.