I hadn't seen Silver's blog post back in August, but I'm very dubious about his conclusion that
"in other cases, the ballot option has played a spoiler role: the 1.2 percent of voters who selected None of These Candidates in the 1996 presidential race was larger than the margin separating Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. And in the 1998 Senate race, the 8,125 votes for None of These Candidates easily outdistanced the 395-vote margin between Harry Reid and John Ensign, allowing Mr. Reid to be re-elected."
That seems like a strange conclusion to me. NOTA votes weren't "spoilers" who "allowed" Reid to win since we have no idea a) whether NOTA voters would have voted absent the NOTA options, and b) which candidate NOTA voters were more likely to support.
I understand that this argument is often made when a third candidate (e.g., Nader in FL in 2000) gets more votes than the difference between the winner and the second-place finisher. But we know more about the preferences of Nader voters than about those of NOTA voters (unless there is some research out there that I'm not familiar with). After all, no one would have accused Nader of being a spoiler had Gore been declared the winner in FL.
If Silver is going to claim NOTA voters played the role of spoiler, then he should also treat every election where the number of abstainers exceeds the difference between first- and second-place as an instance where "non-voters played the role of spoilers, which allowed X to win over Y." That is, NOTA voters have more in common with non-voters than with third-party or independent voters.
Antoine
--------------------
Antoine Yoshinaka
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Political Science
2217 Watkins Hall
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
Tel:(951)827-4688
Fax:(951)827-3933
Email: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu
Website: http://politicalscience.ucr.edu/people/faculty/yoshinaka/index.html
---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:18:49 -0700
>From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu (on behalf of Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>)
>Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
>To: jboppjr@aol.com
>Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
>
> There's a lot of attention paid to this so I think
> many voters understand how it works.
>
> Here's the relevant statute
>
> NRS 293.269 Ballots for statewide offices or
> President and Vice President must permit voter to
> register opposition to all candidates.
>
> 1. Every ballot upon which appears the names
> of candidates for any statewide office or for
> President and Vice President of the United States
> shall contain for each office an additional line
> equivalent to the lines on which the candidates'
> names appear and placed at the end of the group of
> lines containing the names of the candidates for
> that office. Each additional line shall contain a
> square in which the voter may express a choice of
> that line in the same manner as the voter would
> express a choice of a candidate, and the line shall
> read "None of these candidates."
>
> 2. Only votes cast for the named candidates
> shall be counted in determining nomination or
> election to any statewide office or presidential
> nominations or the selection of presidential
> electors, but for each office the number of ballots
> on which the additional line was chosen shall be
> listed following the names of the candidates and the
> number of their votes in every posting, abstract and
> proclamation of the results of the election.
>
> 3. Every sample ballot or other instruction
> to voters prescribed or approved by the Secretary of
> State shall clearly explain that the voter may mark
> the choice of the line "None of these candidates"
> only if the voter has not voted for any candidate
> for the office.
>
> (Added to NRS by 1975, 475)
>
> Here is a picture from one of the ballots:
>
> http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2010/10/18/Clark.JPG
>
> Here is a sample ballot from Carson county:
>
> http://www.carson.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=25297
>
> I did not see any explanation of how "None of these
> candidates" works.
>
> Nate Silver blogged back in August:
>
> Since 1975, Nevadans have had the choice of voting
> for "None of These Candidates," which appears as a
> ballot line along with the named candidates. The
> option has waxed and waned in popularity. But in
> 1976, None of These Candidates actually won the
> plurality of votes in the Republican primary for a
> United States House seat. (The nomination was
> awarded to the second-place finisher, Walden
> Earhart.) And in other cases, the ballot option
> has played a spoiler role: the 1.2 percent of
> voters who selected None of These Candidates in
> the 1996 presidential race was larger than the
> margin separating Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. And
> in the 1998 Senate race, the 8,125 votes for None
> of These Candidates easily outdistanced the
> 395-vote margin between Harry Reid and John
> Ensign, allowing Mr. Reid to be re-elected.
>
> On 10/20/2010 8:32 AM, jboppjr@aol.com wrote:
>
> This seems troubling to me and I wonder what
> others think. I assume voters think that by voting
> NOTA and it wins, then no one in fact would be
> elected. This is also what one would assume by
> just the plain language of it. Isn't this at
> least misleading and even a fraud on the voter?
> Jim Bopp
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael McDonald <mmcdon@gmu.edu>
> To: 'Election Law' <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
> Sent: Wed, Oct 20, 2010 10:16 am
> Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of
> Other Latinos?
>
> The highest vote getting candidate wins.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor, George Mason University
> Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
>
> Mailing address:
> (o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
> (f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
> mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
> [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of
> john.k.tanner@gmail.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:55 AM
> To: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu; Scarberry, Mark; Rick Hasen
> Cc: Election Law
> Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
>
> In Nevada, what happens if NOTA wins a plurality or majority?
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Yoshinaka <antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu>
> Sender: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:06:30
> To: Scarberry, Mark<Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu>; Rick
> Hasen<rick.hasen@lls.edu>
> Reply-To: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu
> Cc: Election Law<election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
>
> I think Annabelle Lever makes the point, in her recent article in the
> British Journal of Political Science (linked by Rick a few weeks ago), that
> no country compels voters to cast a *valid* vote--only turning out to vote
> is compulsory in countries such as Australia, Belgium, Brazil, etc.
>
> In countries with both compulsory voting and some form of electronic voting
> (e.g., Belgium, Brazil), there is an option to cast a recorded blank vote.
> In the recent presidential election in Brazil, for instance, about 3% of
> voters cast a blank vote.
> --------------------
> Antoine Yoshinaka
> Assistant Professor
> Dept. of Political Science
> 2217 Watkins Hall
> University of California, Riverside
> Riverside, CA 92521
> Tel:(951)827-4688
> Fax:(951)827-3933
> Email: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu
> Website: http://politicalscience.ucr.edu/people/faculty/yoshinaka/index.html
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:28:17 -0700
> >From: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu>
> >Subject: RE: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
> >To: <antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu>, "Rick Hasen" <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
> >Cc: "Election Law" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
> >
> >I think it's pernicious to urge members of an ethnic group not to vote, at
> least without providing an argument that makes at least some small amount of
> sense (such as, "none of the parties care about Latino concerns, so send a
> message by not voting").
> >
> >I wonder whether, in countries where voting is compulsory (Australia?
> ___?), a voter is permitted to cast a blank ballot. Or is the point that the
> voter must make a choice among the candidates?
> >
> >Mark Scarberry
> >Pepperdine
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Antoine Yoshinaka
> >Sent: Tue 10/19/2010 9:41 PM
> >To: Rick Hasen
> >Cc: 'Election Law'
> >Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
> >
> >
> >
> >This is getting somewhat off-topic (apologies for that), but it's
> interesting that in some countries, a "blank vote" is seen as a conscious
> choice by voters, akin to Nevada's NOTA (e.g., France's "vote blanc"), and
> qualitatively different from a spoiled ballot. In many instances (e.g., the
> French Communists in 1969, or more recently Le Pen in 1995 and 2007),
> candidates have urged their supporters either to stay home or come to the
> polls and cast a blank vote instead of supporting one of the remaining
> candidates.
> >
> >So on this point, the evidence contradicts the assertion that no one would
> find a reason to show up and vote NOTA on all elections on the ballot.
> Empirically we find many voters in France, who, for whatever reason, show up
> at the polls and intentionally cast a blank vote for the only election or
> referendum on the ballot. This is the case even in countries without
> compulsory voting (e.g., France). Interestingly there is a movement to
> recognize blank votes as a separate category in the vote tabulations (a
> position espoused by the aptly-named Parti Blanc).
> >--------------------
> >Antoine Yoshinaka
> >Assistant Professor
> >Dept. of Political Science
> >2217 Watkins Hall
> >University of California, Riverside
> >Riverside, CA 92521
> >Tel:(951)827-4688
> >Fax:(951)827-3933
> >Email: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu
> >Website:
> http://politicalscience.ucr.edu/people/faculty/yoshinaka/index.html
> >
> >
> >---- Original message ----
> >>Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:12:00 -0700
> >>From: Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
> >>Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
> >>To: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu
> >>Cc: Jeff Patch <jpatch@campaignfreedom.org>, "'Election Law'"
> <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
> >>
> >> Very interesting question on the NOTA option. I
> >> think Nevada is the only state with such an
> >> option---perhaps there are others. I'm not a fan of
> >> NOTA (except in a system of compulsory voting),
> >> because it is the equivalent of suppressing turnout
> >> in some races. (Presumably not in all races, as no
> >> one would have a reason to show up at the polls and
> >> vote NOTA in all races.)
> >>
> >> I've flirted with the idea of supporting compulsory
> >> voting laws, because I view voting as a
> >> distribution of power among political equals, and
> >> when turnout is not just generally suppressed, but
> >> suppressed to skew results in demographic ways
> >> (e.g., targeted at Latinos), it affects the
> >> allocation of political power. So I think I object
> >> most to the depression of turnout targeted at
> >> particular groups, even under a NOTA system. That
> >> is, if the Latinos for Reform ad was cast as "Vote
> >> NOTA," I think I'd have the same objections.
> >>
> >> But these are very tentative thoughts and I'd have
> >> to consider it much more closely.
> >>
> >> On 10/19/2010 8:53 PM, Antoine Yoshinaka wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't usually contribute to the debates on the list, but I always find
> these discussions very enlightening.
> >>
> >> Rick (and others): since this is Nevada and voters have an option of
> voting for "none of the above," would you find it objectionable if a group
> such as LFR (but any group, really) were to urge voters to vote for "none of
> the above"? While this would not "depress turnout," my understanding of the
> way votes are counted in NV is that this would be functionally equivalent to
> staying home in terms of ascertaining the winner of the election. Would the
> objections raised in this case be valid?
> >>
> >> Or what if, in a two-round election, some group is urging the supporters
> of one of the candidates eliminated in the first round to stay home instead
> of voting for either of the top two remaining candidates? My understanding
> is that this routinely happens among supporters of fringe parties around the
> world.
> >>
> >> I guess my question boils down to this: is the objection about depressing
> turnout per se, or rather about the tactic used to depress turnout and/or
> the group targeted by the ad?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Antoine
> >> --------------------
> >> Antoine Yoshinaka
> >> Assistant Professor
> >> Dept. of Political Science
> >> 2217 Watkins Hall
> >> University of California, Riverside
> >> Riverside, CA 92521
> >> Tel:(951)827-4688
> >> Fax:(951)827-3933
> >> Email: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu
> >> Website:
> http://politicalscience.ucr.edu/people/faculty/yoshinaka/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >> ---- Original message ----
> >>
> >> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:51:05 -0700
> >> From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu (on behalf of Rick Hasen
> <rick.hasen@lls.edu>)
> >> Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
> >> To: Jeff Patch <jpatch@campaignfreedom.org>
> >> Cc: "'Election Law'" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
> >>
> >> I don't have time for a full reply now. But let me
> >> confirm that yes, indeed, I meant astounding in a
> >> decidedly negative way. I'd have to go back to
> >> look, but I believe that every state's voting law
> >> makes it illegal to pay people not to vote. That
> >> law seems to reflect a broad social consensus
> >> against paying to suppress turnout. (In contrast,
> >> state laws are mixed about payment for turnout.)
> >>
> >> Just like it is illegal to pay people not to vote,
> >> it seems objectionable to urge people not to do
> >> so---and even worse when it is targeted at a
> >> particular group of people.
> >> As far as whether someone of a particular race or
> >> ethnicity could be biased against that very same
> >> race or ethnicity, certainly that's the case with
> >> some people.
> >>
> >> I think you are on more solid ground when you say
> >> that this ad is not likely to sway many voters not
> >> to vote. But that certainly seems its intent.
> >> (That, or getting publicity for the group or person
> >> running the ad.)
> >>
> >> On 10/19/2010 6:25 PM, Jeff Patch wrote:
> >>
> >> Rick refers to the message of the rejected Latinos
> >> for Reform ad, which urges Hispanics to stay home
> >> in November in protest of the Democrats' lack of
> >> action on immigration reform, as "astounding."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My interpretation of his comments is that he
> >> perceives this proposed ad campaign as
> >> "astounding" in a decidedly negative way, akin to
> >> vote suppression by passing out flyers in an
> >> African American neighborhood with the wrong
> >> Election Day listed. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I got
> >> that impression from the link he selected, which
> >> referred to the ad as an effort to "suppress the
> >> vote of various racial minorities." Sen. Majority
> >> Leader Harry Reid has also referred to the ad as
> >> "an example of "Hispanic voter suppression." A Las
> >> Vegas-based Hispanic group claimed that "[t]hey
> >> are trying to take away our privileged right to
> >> vote through scare tactics and fear mongering."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Univision, a private business, has every right to
> >> decline to air the ad, despite its dominant
> >> position in reaching Hispanic audience. A few
> >> points/questions, though:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (1) The group is run by prominent Hispanic
> >> conservatives who have been involved in
> >> immigration reform for years. It's pretty hard to
> >> see some sort of a racist motive here, no?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (2) The premise of this ad as a voter suppression
> >> tool seems-like most efforts to characterize
> >> independent ads as somehow corrupting or
> >> nefarious-to be that Latino voters are so gullible
> >> that they can be lured by the ad's Siren call into
> >> not voting.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> There's certainly no intent on the part of the
> >> ad's critics to imply that Latinos cannot decide
> >> for themselves how to vote, but the suggestion
> >> that the ad is reprehensible implies that people
> >> are too dim to decide political matters on their
> >> own when faced with controversial-or even
> >> misleading-advertising. That strikes me as pretty
> >> condescending toward the democratic process.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (3) Removing a potential racial motive, this
> >> tactic seems perfectly legitimate. I'm a
> >> libertarian. In 2008 I did not vote, partly
> >> because of an absentee ballot snafu. But I ended
> >> up not remedying the mix-up because I was
> >> frustrated with McCain's general election campaign
> >> even after spending three months volunteering for
> >> the primary campaign in various states. As a
> >> rational person, I'm aware my vote didn't matter,
> >> but I don't understand why it's illegitimate for a
> >> group to urge people to not vote if a political
> >> party or candidate fails to act on their issues.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps this ad would have been less controversial
> >> if it urged Hispanics to write-in someone or vote
> >> third party, but that's a bit more of a
> >> complicated message. But, I'm wondering if Rick
> >> would feel the same way if, in 2012, NORML ran ads
> >> in California asking marijuana users not to vote
> >> because no Democrats supported Prop. 19-or is
> >> there something specifically objectionable about
> >> an ad targeting a certain ethnic constituency of
> >> voters?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jeff Patch
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
> >> [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On
> >> Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:11 AM
> >> To: Election Law
> >> Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary
> >> 10/19/10
> >>
> >> October 18, 2010
> >>
> >> "Don't Vote This November"
> >>
> >> That's the astounding message of an ad from
> >> "Latinos for Reform." Here's an NPR story on the
> >> group from 2008. Here's the group's press release
> >> about the new ad. The most recent filing of this
> >> 527 organization is not illuminating. Here's some
> >> 2008 financial information.
> >>
> >> Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:01 PM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> election-law mailing list
> >> election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> >> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rick Hasen
> >> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> >> Loyola Law School
> >> 919 Albany Street
> >> Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
> >> (213)736-1466
> >> (213)380-3769 - fax
> >> rick.hasen@lls.edu
> >> http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
> >> http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
> >> ________________
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> election-law mailing list
> >> election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> >> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rick Hasen
> >> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> >> Loyola Law School
> >> 919 Albany Street
> >> Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
> >> (213)736-1466
> >> (213)380-3769 - fax
> >> rick.hasen@lls.edu
> >> http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
> >> http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
> >_______________________________________________
> >election-law mailing list
> >election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> >http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
> >
> >
> >________________
> >TNEF36475.rtf (62k bytes)
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
> election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
> election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
> election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
> election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School
> 919 Albany Street
> Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
> (213)736-1466
> (213)380-3769 - fax
> rick.hasen@lls.edu
> http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>election-law mailing list
>election-law@mailman.lls.edu
>http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law