We need a "none of the above" ballot option

NOTA would be far more effective than campaign-finance reform in reducing the overwhelming advantages of incumbency. In many races, second-rate incumbents win by beating third-rate or underfunded challengers. With NOTA, a fitting office holder could lose an election and give new candidates a chance even in a hopelessly gerrymandered district.

If NOTA came close to winning, even the most entrenched incumbents might be forced to reconsider their positions and inject some needed humility into their thinking. Adding NOTA to the ballot might also improve the nation’s abysmal voter turnout. NOTA might even discourage highly negative campaigning, because candidates would be running for voters’ approval, not just to offend fewer people than their opponents do.

NOTA would transfer power from politicians and political parties to voters, and therefore likely faces strong opposition from both major parties and those that collude with them. Nevada is the only state with a NOTA option. However, it lacks the trigger mechanism for a new election if NOTA wins a plurality. More states would need to adopt NOTA—with the mechanism for a new election—for it to be a meaningful way to withhold consent.

Third-party and independent candidates—such as Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Evan McMullin—can be another way to withhold consent from the major-party candidates. But they will probably never command the broad support that NOTA would when both major-party candidates are unqualified.