Nevada’s Illusion of Choice

Nevada’s known for its Libertarian leanings. “Stay off my property!” “Don’t charge me taxes!” “Parents can educate their own kids!” Suffice to say, Nevadans are highly suspicious of their government and those who claim to represent the voice of the people.

When it comes time for elections, Nevada’s voters are the only ones who can choose, “none of the above candidates” at the ballot box. Unfortunately, all votes cast for “none of the above candidates” are disregarded by ballot counters. According to the Las Vegas Weekly, columnist Rick Lax wrote,

“Walden Earhart won the 1976 Republican primary for Nevada’s at-large congressional district with 9,831 votes. Opponent Dart Anthony only received 8,097, but the popular ‘none of these candidates,’ received a whopping 16,097 votes … which were thrown out, giving Earhart the win.”

What?! Why give people the option to vote for “none of the above candidates” if they’re going to be thrown out, regardless? It makes no sense. A special election should be held and new candidates should be able to run, while those that lost should not be able to run during this special election. Nevadan’s votes should be counted.

Unfortunately, thanks to a new lawsuit, some people want to take away choice and force voters to vote for “the lesser of two evils” although they certainly aren’t phrasing it that way. According to Matt Hufman of the Las Vegas Sun,

“The lawsuit wants to force people to choose between candidates, arguing that without ‘none’ on the ballot in the races for president and senator, voters will ‘cast their votes for one of the candidates running for those offices, including Gov. (Mitt) Romney and Sen. (Dean) Heller.’ As an example, the lawsuit cites a Republican who says he plans to vote for ‘none,’ adding that if he doesn’t have that option, he’ll pick Romney.”

Nevada needs choices. This lawsuit should be shot down and “none of the above candidates” votes should count in elections.


5 thoughts on “Nevada’s Illusion of Choice

  1. I liked your blog post topic. I just took Nevada Constitution in May, and we had a discussion about it. I agree with you that having “none of the above” is a good option. If someone believes that there are no good candidates, they should not be required to choose someone they do not like.

    I also liked your video. You are very comfortable on camera and it shows. I like your use of quotes in your blog post too.

  2. I really liked your blog! It was professional and efficient. You provided some very insightful information and I definitely learned a lot. I could tell that it was a topic you were comfortable talking about and you actually knew what you were talking about! You also seemed really confortable in front of the camera which is great! good job Rach!

  3. As soon as your video started, I got really excited to watch it because I recognized you from last semester’s JOUR 100 and loved your thoughts and commentary in the class!

    Your article and video are interesting because you present all the information but with some “sass,” per se. You make it interesting, as opposed to much of the dry literature written about politics.

  4. I liked this post. You informed me of an issue in Nevada I never knew about. I had no idea that if someone votes for no candidate their vote is not counted. It’s as if you have to decide on a candidate. So their voices aren’t being heard. You right a special election should be held. I didn’t vote in local elections because I didn’t believe in neither candidates but atleast some people are willing to say it by voting it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s