A: Armenia's election code allows voting Against when there is only one candidate. In the election of the U.N. Secretary General, nations can vote AGAINST the candidates, why shouldn’t we ordinary citizens have the same right when we select our leaders? 

A: The fact it does not exist in "the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights" shows the Covenant is imperfect and has room for improvement. The right to object is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. Suppose there is only one candidate, should I as a voter only have the option to vote YES or not vote? Should I not have the right to vote NO? If there are more than one candidate but you don’t like any, why should you not have the right to vote NO? “Democracy is all about choice. This choice can be better expressed by giving the voters an opportunity to verbalize themselves unreservedly and by imposing least restrictions on their ability to make such a choice.” --Quotation from Indian Supreme Court. (Although the Court was ruling on a different idea, the principle expressed is just as valid here.)

A: A Rand Corporation’s U.S. presidential election survey conducted in Oct-Nov 2016 showed voter participation rate would be 6.9% higher which would have meant 16+ million more voters voting if the option to vote NO were available. 

Another RAND study in the 2020 election showed that for the 12 key swing states, voter participation rate would have been 3.4% higher if voters could vote NO.  

​

A:  A minimum threshold can be set.  Some countries already have thresholds in their election codes.  The threshold may may be different for local circumstances.  

A: The election should be re-held and previous candidates should be barred from participation. That probability is extremely low for large election districts(near negligible, probably as rare as two top candidates getting identical votes or all candidates die). Since each voter has only one vote, no candidate would be so stupid as to encourage loyal supporters cast Against votes. Each candidate would have passionate supporters. These would cast FOR votes. RAND survey in the U.S. showed a very high 40% of votes cast being Against votes in the 2016 Presidential election, also split mainly against the two major party Presidential candidates.  No survey has ever shown total negative votes exceed total positive votes.  If you do some hypothetical allocation of FOR and AGAINST votes, you might reach the same conclusion as we have that it is extremely difficult to construct a scenario where no one gets net positive votes. Someone will get higher net positive votes and win.

A: Isn’t electing the wrong person into office even more costly?

A: Just the opposite. Having the option to Vote Against will reduce negative campaign. Under current election system, all candidates have incentive to employ negative campaign in some degree. Since no one can vote against him, he who uses negative campaign will not lose the support of his supporters and might reduce the support of the opponent. If the Against option is available, such a strategy would run the risk of antagonizing the middle-electorate to cast votes against him. With this option, it is no longer sufficient to have just the support of party diehards, a candidate must also try avoid antagonizing, and win the support of the middle-electorate. Real ‘beef” therefore will need to be presented in the campaign instead of just throwing dirt on the opponent.

A: We welcome more research and studies and wish some academic institutions would do more research and study of this reform proposal. Nevertheless, the 3 principle reasons to support having the option to vote Against are based on logic that cannot be refuted by research and studies.  (1)The right to object cannot be refuted by studies.  (2) A voluntary increase in voter participation is good for democracy cannot be refuted by studies. (3) Reducing influence of extremist politicians will promote peace and harmony cannot be refuted by studies.  We are confident more surveys elsewhere will continue to prove (a) voter participation will increase and (b) election result could be altered in a tight race.  In a Boston City council race, the outcome was decided by only one vote difference.  If the Against vote were available and two additional voters voted against the leader, the other candidate would have won and the outcome would be more democratic.

A: Middle-of-the-road does not mean lack of creativity or progressive thinking. The Balanced Ballot idea itself is a good example of a non-partisan, middle-of-the-road idea. It is a creative and progressive (some would say revolutionary) idea, far from mediocre.

A: "None of the above" or NOTA is available already in Nevada, India and a few other countries such as Thailand and Brazil. After NOTA became available in 2013 in India, you can find English press comments there why it has no impact at all in India. That is not surprising to us. A fundamental value in democracy is one person one vote and each vote carries the same weight. NOTA violates the same weight spirit. If too few people cast NOTA, it is the same as casting an invalid vote, carries no weight at all. If a lot of people cast NOTA so that it exceeds certain threshold to void the election, then it carries too much weight, again violates the equal value spirit. The design of the Balanced Ballot is still one person one vote, each vote carries the same weight. Because there is only one vote, the political parties will urge their supporters to cast positive votes, the probability of "no winner" outcome is extremely low. The key contribution of the Balanced Ballot is that it allows an option that will stimulate the middle electorate to come out to vote, and if they cast Against votes, they will cast them against extremist candidates. NOTA will not be as effective in stimulating more people to vote nor weeding out extremism. Once voters have the full range of options: YES, NO, or ABSTAIN, voters have the obligation to make a choice. When the “NO” choice is available, “None-of-the-Above” would be as undesirable as “ALL-of-the-ABOVE”.

A: It will make a difference in a two-person race. Here is an illustration by example: Under current system: A 34, B 33.   A wins and proudly proclaims majority mandate. What if the reality is that there are 10 other voters who chose not to vote because they dislike both candidates and refuse to vote for either one against their conscience? Having the option to vote Against will bring some of them out. Suppose 5 did: A +34 -4 (net 30) B +33 -1 (net 32) B wins and must admit (s)he does NOT have majority support, even though (s)he won in a two-candidate race! A humbler winner in a two-person race( or any other race) is also good for democracy. More voters participated and clearer messages are delivered. We also submit A's winning the election with fewer participation means the wrong person got elected. Similar example can be constructed for a contest with 3 or more persons.

A: Although we advocate having the choice to vote Against as a basic right, we are NOT encouraging voters to cast Against votes, just the opposite. Our vision is that once voters have this option, extremists' influence will be reduced, the influence of the middle electorate will be respected more, negative campaign will lessen, and candidates must bring “beef” to the table to win the FOR votes of the middle electorate instead of AGAINST. The extremist politicians are weeded out. Political parties will nominate better candidates, the middle electorate will therefore cast more FOR votes instead of AGAINST votes.

A:  A good election system should have the following qualities: (1) Applicable to all election scenarios

(2) Encourages voluntary participation

(3) Easy to understand and implement

RCV and Approval Voting are both irrelevant when there are two or fewer candidates.  In the U.S. and many other countries, local elections often have two or just one candidate.  According to Ballotpedia, 

"On average, between 2018 and 2023, 58% of elections covered by Ballotpedia have been uncontested, ranging from a low of 50% in 2021 to a high of 64% in 2020.

Through October 2024, Ballotpedia has covered 36,068 elections in 55 states and territories. Of that total, 27,164 (75%) were uncontested and 8,904 (25%) were contested."

​

Proportional representation is useful for allocation of legislative seats but not useful for election of an executive such as a local mayor.   We are not against these other voting systems.  If the voters in a district is already accustomed to these systems, they may wish to consider how to incorporate the Negative vote option and improve such systems.  By "improvement", we mean if voter participation is higher and delivers a different outcome, it is an improvement.

Please see the analysis and the spreadsheet that shows how the Against option can be incorporated into Ranked Choice Voting and improve it.  

Here is an article about Balanced Approval Voting by Paul Cohen.

Below is an analysis of how to incorporate the Against option into PR. 

A: No. There is nothing in the Constitution that disallows voting Against.  California judicial retention ballots already have the YES or NO options. 

A: Here is how the Against option can be included in the proportional representation system and improve it.

Suppose under the current system of proportional representation, parties A and B each get the following % of eligible voters' votes:

A 34%

B 33%

A wins and proudly claims "majority mandate".

A gets 50.7% of the seats in Parliament. If total seats available are 100, A would get 51 and B 49. Suppose Against option is available and 5% more voters come out to vote, and the result is A 34- 4 and B 33-1, B wins, The result reflects clearly the preferences of 72% voters rather than 67%, that is more democratic. Party B should get the nod to rule but how to allocate the seats in Parliament? It is not possible to allocate seats to represent the "no" voters( at least we have not figured out how).

It is possible, and logical, to allocate seats based on the % margin of victory.

In this case, B's 32% net positive vs. A's 30% net positive reflect a net 2.8% difference. (44.4% vs 41.7% of total votes cast)

The parliamentary seats allocation therefore should reflect that margin as well.

If the total seats available are 100, then the seats should be allocated 51 to B and 48 to A.

3-party scenario:

A 30%

B 29%

C 28% A wins under current system.

If there are 100 seats to be allocated, A would get 34, B 33 and C 32 If the NO option is available and 9% more voters come out to vote:

A 30 -4=+26

B 29 -4=+25

C 28 -1=+27

C wins.

The result reflects 96% voters’ wishes compared to 87%, this is more democratic. The 100 seats would be allocated C 34, A 33 and B 32.

​