http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/02/03/a_new_hampshire_bill_would_allow_voters_to_vote_for_none_of_the_above.html
The good people of New Hampshire are known to have a bit of an ornery streak when it comes to voting. Part of their ballot-box reputation perhaps stems from the state’s “Live Free or Die” motto, but the state’s first primary status also contributes to its role as the country's political diva.
So, it makes some sense that the state is weighing a bill that would give New Hampshire voters a chance to express themselves a bit more specifically by placing a “none of the above” option on the state’s ballots.
Having the choice not-to-choose is worth having for the state’s voters even though getting it passed is a long shot, according to the backers of the bill. “Real choice means people have to be able to withhold their consent,” state legislator Charles Weed told the Associated Press.
But, even some supporters of the idea acknowledge it would be “humiliating for a candidate to be defeated by no one rather than an actual opponent,” the AP reports.
“It’s hard enough to lose to an opponent. It’s doubly hard to lose to nobody,” Rep. Douglas Ley told the AP. “We have tender egos. It’s one of the reasons why I think it’s been opposed, but no one will ever say that.”Under the bill, if “none of the above” came out on top of the poor souls who were actually above, a special election would be held.
this IMO is a bone throwing veiled in a plan for somebody to get richer. the money spent to add that than the people showing up would call for longer poll hours or extensions unless they are not republicans in that case they are already checkmated.
but what is the difference in coming out and braving the weather just to say the same thing you could from the comfort of your home, as to no vote equals a vote for other side either way there is still no vote.
as to losing to nobody that is the choice you make knowing it could happen and how secure you are with your supporters.
If New Hampshire decides to allow “none of the above” to run, the state would be the second in the country to have the option to vote for nobody. Nevada is currently the only state that gives voters that option. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court, refused an appeal by Republicans in the state trying to remove the “none of the above” option, the AP reports.
of course the republicans did, paranoid insecurity, or no faith in their own platform as being a winner. lots of Hispanics in Nevada,
