An abridged version of the following was published in The Oregonian newspaper on May 20,1998.

None of the Above

Tuesday's primary election came and went with record low voter participation. What happened? Too many choices, too few choices, or the wrong choices? Did people stay home because they're apathetic, or because none of the candidates were worth spending the time at the polls, or the postage stamp, to vote for?

While there are many reasons for not voting, let's consider two ways to increase participation. The first would be to add "None of the Above" to the ballot in every election.

Often referred to as NOTA, "None of the Above" has been on the ballot in Nevada since 1976. In 1980 it finished second in the Democratic Presidential Primary, beating Ted Kennedy! A version of NOTA helped newly enfranchised voters in Poland and Russia oust hundreds of communist functionaries who ran unopposed in those countries first truly open elections. Voters were allowed to simply cross off candidates they opposed.

Look at one specific editorial endorsement (or non-endorsement) from The Oregonian why this state's voters should like NOTA. Out of four Republican candidates for Governor, the paper endorsed none. If you had no preference, or actively opposed one or more candidates, what could you do? You could stay home and not vote, which would be interpreted by pundits as voter apathy. You could write-in some other candidate of your choice, but without an organized write-in effort it's unlikely such disperse sentiments would even be reported. Or, you could have marked NOTA — if it had been on the ballot. That vote would have sent a message, and might have actually increased participation in the election.

Oregonians came close to expressing a None of the Above sentiment in 1996. Wes Cooley earned about 23,000 votes compared to some 31,000 "blank" and "other" votes in the second congressional district Republican primary. NOTA was not an official choice, so Cooley became the nominee.

NOTA can work in various ways. A mild version simply forces a new election without any of the previous candidates allowed to run again. A strict version would leave the office (or one party's candidacy for that office) vacant until the next regular election -- which is an option that might appeal to many people.

We hear a lot these days about voter apathy. "Don't complain if you don't vote" is a common refrain from those who think participation is all-important. But how often have you heard friends, neighbors and co-workers express exasperation at the lack of appealing candidates for this position or that? There is currently no way for those opinions to be registered on election day except to stay home and be mislabeled as apathetic. Vote for whom you perceive to be the "lesser of two evils" and your vote counts just as strongly as someone who votes enthusiastically for that candidate. Write-in someone else and no one but some election night worker will ever see your preference. Only NOTA gives you a real reason to vote when you dislike all the candidates.

The second serious suggestion to increase voter turnout is Secretary of State Keislings' vote-by-mail initiative, which is currently circulating. We often hear that making it easier to vote will increase turnout, but look at what happened Tuesday. Forty percent of all voters are now permanent absentees, and fifty percent of all voters could have voted by mail. They only had to mark their ballot, stick a stamp on the envelope and mail it in. Yet the total voter turnout was less than the number of permanent absentees. It's hard to believe that if everyone could vote by mail the turnout would have been much greater. If people aren't motivated to vote in the first place, making it easier to do so probably won't increase participation.

At the risk of introducing a bad idea, one day someone will seriously propose mandatory voting. He or she will argue that if voting is so important, why not require citizens to do it? This will be the ultimate triumph of process over outcomes. If we want elections to yield better results, we need to give people more choices, not fewer.

A Wall Street Journal editorial several years ago stated that in many races second-rate office-holders win by beating third-rate challengers. None of the Above could be the first-rate alternative many voters desire. NOTA is the true alternative to voting for the lesser of two evils, or one evil running unopposed.