· Establishes flexible, voter controlled term limits of one term for every office, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended.
· Campaign contributors who give to all candidates to insure "access" would no longer be sure they backed the winner; in general, buying elections should become a more uncertain enterprise.
· Improves checks and balances between voters and political parties, especially needed in jurisdictions with one dominant political party or nearly identical alternatives.
· Political parties would nominate candidates knowing those candidates must be a better choice for voters than "None of the Above."
· Follow-up by-elections are far less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.
· Office holders, knowing they face "None of the Above" in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate.
· When pre-election polls include "None of the Above", the feedback from voters should help guide candidates and parties.
· Even when "None of the Above" does not win or is a non-binding NOTA, the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner's mandate.
· Provides a permanent option for voters to withhold consent that is independent of expensive and infrequent candidate based "reform" movements.
· Should make public service more attractive by improving the quality of those elected to office.
· Opportunities for election fraud should be reduced because fewer blank votes for an office would be cast.
· Applies to all candidates and parties equally.
· It is a relatively simple, fair, sensible, accomplishable and permanent improvement to our current system, hopefully making for a more democratic and ultimately stronger America.
1 | 2
