Bureaucracy and None of the Above

The Progressive movement and its social democratic system put considerable faith in bureaucracy. In part, this was because the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw bureaucracy as improvement over the paternalism of the early nineteenth century, and they were right. However, by 1940 right as the New Deal reforms of 1932-7 were drawing to a close, it had become evident that bureaucracy does not work so well as its proponents thought. In the 1940s the sociologist Robert Merton wrote an article about the rigidity of bureaucracy and bureaucrats' fetishization of rules at the expense of efficiency. In the 1950s Taiicho Ohno of Toyota pioneered the principles of lean production and total quality management. Even going back so far as the 1920s, Alfred Sloan of General Motors, along with executives in other leading firms, pioneered the use of decentralization, federalized organization, realizing that large firms did not permit global or functional forms of organization. The information and flexibility requirements of large firms are too daunting for anyone to handle.

Strangely, though, the Progressive and social democratic movement continued to emphasize centralization. The result is that increasingly, American life has been dominated by unresponsive, unproductive government bureaucracies that spin regulation and do not care what the public thinks. This is the result not only of centralization but also of the increasing emphasis on expertise in the expansion of government at the expense of the spoils system.

The result is a considerable degree of dissonance between the public's experience and the "facts" it is fed in school, through the news media and through public opinion leaders who are committed to the Progressive, social democratic solution because it enforces their status as professional experts, elite business leaders and the like.

The public has become increasingly alienated from public institutions because they are distant; they do not work; and they are held forth as far superior to the processes and systems that in the public's own experience work. As a result, the public experiences what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance". On the one hand, they are taught that "experts" know better than they do. But when they interact with state government, the department of motor vehicles and the like, they experience systems that do not work so well as ones that they themselves could devise. They are taught that scientists can solve problems. But then they hear that cancer has become an industry characterized by avoidance of effective remedies, politics, waste and regulation of innovative ideas out of existence. They are told that the state equalizes inequity, then they learn that the federal government subsidization billionaire investment bankers through direct bounties and a central banking system that sees its primary role as to support stock prices.

Cognitive dissonance has unpredictable effects, but one of them is potentially withdrawal. Others include anger, attempting to intervene and correct the situation, and denial. All of these are present in today's society.

Both left and right have become increasingly strident as the remedies that they advocate, central banking, expertise in government, efficiency, a corporatist state that supports the public interest, have failed to materialize. Political correctness, left wing intolerance of dissent in universities and other institutions, reflects the left's inability to confront the failure of the mercantilist solution to which it has been wedded since the late eighteenth century. Likewise, the right wing increasingly fights within itself, unable to arrive at a coherent picture of reform. As well, much of the right is in denial about its own Progressive spirit. The split between libertarians and conservatives has permitted mercantilists of the Progressive (Republican) and social democratic (Democratic) stripe to dominate the electoral process.

The public faces declining real wages, yet has refused to confront the decline and has borrowed, consuming about six percent more each year than it creates. There is avoidance of the causes of economic decline. Firms have heavily relied on public subsidy, especially through the banking system, yet corporate executives claim prerogatives of private property in extracting ever-increasing salaries that at most weakly reflect corporate performance. Few in the news media suggest that corporations that do not see a public role ought not to be subsidized by the public, and that the Federal Reserve system is little more than a crutch for inefficient American firms.

Americans increasingly feel alienated. The reason is that the obsession with size and economies of scale has been pursued too far. The large scale of industry; the large federal government have not yielded increases in wealth. Rather, they have become vehicles by which corrupt special interests extract wealth at public expense and as the public has reacted to cognitive dissonance by increasingly withdrawing or by becoming ever more strident in its demand for "change", a noun that describes an unnamed verb.

The remedy for too much centralization is decentralization.

Why Democrats and Republicans Are Mostly the Same: the Roosevelts

The two Roosevelts were founders of post-modern progessivism. Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican who believed in a statist corporate system. He became the most radically left-wing of all American presidents, including his cousin Franklin. Roosevelt believed that corporations should be licensed to engage in interstate commerce and that the federal government should tell firms what prices to charge and how to function. Although his ideas were too extreme, and ultimately were rejected by his appointed successor, William H. Taft, the model of a state-regulated economy was the product of the Progressive Republicans and of Roosevelt's presidency. Today, Democrats are calling themselve Progressive, but the fact is that Progressivism was a Republican more than a Democratic movement. Wilson was a Progressive because he had to be. His Mugwump background was consistent with a belief in freedom and private enterprise, and although many Mugwumps, including Theodore Roosevelt, had turned to statism in the Progressive era, Wilson did so in response to political pressure.

The Republican Party, then, was not a small government party in the twentieth century until Barry Goldwater ran on those views in the 1964 presidential election. The Republican Party included a minority of small business advocates (who were NOT libertarian in philosophy-- this was the group that had fought for the Sherman Ant-trust Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission in the 1880s). It included a minority of laissez faire advocates in the late 19th century, the Mugwumps, but but their laissez faire orientation had diminished by 1900, and they were too few in number to be of any importance until Goldwater, who lost by a landslide in the federal election.

The laissez-faire Republican Mugwumps of the late 19th century were not loyal to the Republican Party because the Republicans were indifferent to laissez faire and in their minds good government (civil service) principles. The laissez-faire Democrats in the late 19th century were known as the Bourbon Democrats, and included President Grover Cleveland. But these groups were small even in the 19th century (certainly less than 5 percent of the electorate). Laissez faire was not the philosophy of late nineteenth century Americans, many of whom were immigrants who benefitted from political machines in the cities and had no understanding of the economics of Smith or the opinions of EL Godkin. Thus, it is impossible that laissez-faire conservatives reflected even a small fraction of the Republican Party by the 1930s, when Roosevelt was elected.

Those conservatives who saw themselves adversely affected by the Franklin Roosevelt policies (at least in the public relations sphere) reaped what they had sown. They had not funded opposition to Progressivism in the early twentieth century, and there was no intellectual foundation to fight the New Deal in the 1930s.

Thus, while the founder of the modern Republicans was the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt and his protege (and more conservative but still rather statist) William H. Taft, the founder of the modern Democrats was the social Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, who adopted many of the ideas of Herbert Croly with respect to legislation.

Thus, the debate of the twentieth century has been largely among progressive Republicans, who follow the Taft position, and the progressive Democrats, who follow the Roosevelt position. Both are descendents of Theodore Roosevelt, who may be viewed as the founder of twentieth century ideological debate.

John Lukacs has argued that the dominant ideology of the twentieth century was national socialism. Stalin advocated "socialism in one country" as did Mao, while Hitler coined the term Nazi-Sozi. Progressivism is the American strain of the national socialist movement, and most Americans believe in it. The twenty or thirty percent of Americans who do not must clarify a few points among themselves.

1. The difference between national socialist Americans and those who believe in "none of the above" is that "none-of-the-above" Americans believe in a limited state. That should be the glue that binds them. Other issues distract from the need to restrain state power, which is the chief threat to freedom, progress and economic gain. These are difficult to withstand, because nationalism is a highly emotional cause.

2. Many of the supposed arguments between conservatives and the left are spurious. They are instituted by statists on both left and right. Both the statist left, in its radical as well as liberal forms, and the right, in its converstive talk-show form, are progressive, national socialist movements, even though the right claims to be for small government (but of course belies those claims when elected). Those who would change in the direction of less government have to change habits of thought. That means asking what others who believe in reductions in state power are least likely to believe and avoiding emphasis on those issues for political purposes.

3. Advocates of "none of the above" ought to think of ways to include each other, not to exclude each other because of shibboleths, code words, racial divides, or side issues that serve only to distract.

4. It is a mistake for libertarians to believe that big business Republicans and neo-conservatives are on their side. There is no alliance between those who do not believe in left or right wing national socialism and libertarians, small scale liberals and those who oppose the extension of state power and favor economic development. The conservative right is and always has been as statist as the radical left. The libertarian right has been bamboozled much as the libertarian left has been bamboozled by Stalin and Mao.

Madmen, Hillary and the Wizard of Oz

American Movie Classics'(AMC's) Madmen is great television. Madmen's quality equals HBO's and Showtime's, which puts it a cut above today's Hollywood movies.

Madmen stars Jon Hamm as Don Draper. It is about an advertising agency in the golden age of television, the late 1950s and early 1960s. The name "Draper" alludes to draping or deceiving, and we are reminded of the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, whom Dorothy exposes behind the drapes of the control room. Like the Wizard, Draper's job is to create illusion. One of the story lines is that Draper's firm represents the Nixon campaign pro bono in the 1960 election, the first that television influenced.

Before watching Madmen it would be useful to read a history of consumerism. One is William Leach'sLand of Desire: Merchants, Power and the Rise of a New American Culture and another is Gary Cross's All Consuming Century. Both books provide rich perspective on the dynamic of consumerism and its implications for culture. Leach goes into an extended analysis of the Wizard of Oz.

Following amusement parks, Wannamaker's department store decorations, the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and L. Frank Baum's ideas (Baum, besides being an author, was an early expert about window displays), advertising has been the basis of consumerism. That is, one of the characteristics of consumerism is the creation of imaginative imagery about consumption. Thus, New York and several other large cities became the centers not only of art, culture, theater and television, but more importantly of imagery about consumption that created today's global culture. Such imagery would be unnecessary or unimportant were it truthful. The association of consumerism and advertising suggests that deception is at consumerism's root.

There is an inherent conflict. To be possible, consumerism requires advances in technology. In turn, technology depends on uncovering of the truth, discovery of fundamental principles and a relentless willingness to let old modes, business methods and social constructs die. Schumpeter called this creative destruction. But stimulation of consumption relies on creating an image, one that is often false, romantic or misleading.

At the same time the left is a romantic movement that itself is a reflection of consumer society and advertising. The left manufactures political ideas that are romantic but have as little truth or reality as the mountain stream in a Newport cigarettes ad. The left claims to oppose the deception inherent in commercialization, but does so through "draping" and deception that parallel commercialization. To the left, ideology plays the role that advertising plays to consumerism. The left substitutes lies about a romanticized past and a fictional claim to ethical belief. It deceptively claims that the past is the future.

Thus, the left claims that centralized economic planning (monarchy) is economically superior to markets, a lie. The left claims that government power and regulation, much like the power of kings, is more humane than limited government and private enterprise, which is a lie. The left claims that monetary expansion, which favors the wealthy over the poor, is necessary to help the poor, which is also a lie.

Hence, the dialogue of twentieth century America* was largely between a conservative, market-based view which depends on the truth and technology for its foundations, but furthers its ends through lies and mass media; and a left-wing view whose ideology is itself a lie. Both modern conservatism and left/liberal ideology depend on groupthink. Both rely on the mass media. Both focus on the trivial. Both advocate policies whose effects are the reverse of what they claim. It may be said that in the twentieth century the Sophists triumphed and that the Sophists now dominate our most retrograde institutions, such as universities.

The Republicans claim to be for less government, then when elected expand government. The Democrats claim to be for the poor, but create massive inner city slums, urban ghettos that isolate racial minorities and the poor. As well, the Democrats' educational policies, via left-wing institutions like NCATE, cripple the poor by enfeebling them educationally; and they and the left attack private institutions such as Wal-Mart that benefit the poor economically.

Were it not for the left, the role of intellectual would in part be the one that L. Frank Baum assigned to Dorothy: lifting the drapes from the Wizard's control room, and exposing him for the fraud that he is. That is the tradition of Thorstein Veblen as well as the Austrian economists. But the academy fell prey to ideology, and has adopted rigid, ideological deception, commitment to elitism and attacks on the poor, for instance, through attacking Wal-Mart and through favoring the Federal Reserve Bank, low interest rates and inflation. Universties themselves are a state supported system that encourages class stratification, alienation of the average person and economic isolation of the talented poor. Universities are institutions who demonize the average person, humanity, in the name of an inept elite that produces nothing and whose main purpose is to institutionalize itself.

Doug Ross @ Journal lists "Hillary's Top Ten Fabrications". These include her claim that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary although she was born five years before he climbed Mt. Everest; her failure to disclose profits from Whitewater; and her description of abortion as a "tragic choice".**

It is not surprising that Hillary is a liar. Nor would it be surprising that the Republicans are equally liars. The groupthink; lack of vision; fixation on trivia; emotional outrage about superficial issues and ignoring the fundamental issues such as special interest group influence; corruption of the democratic process through gerrymandering and related processes; misleading disclosure in areas like government operations and inflation; monetary expansion and the corruption of the dollar; claiming to be for less government when you are for more government (such is the history of Rudy Giuliani) all suggest that Republicans and Democrats have similar stakes in equivalent forms of corruption. Both are parties of liars.

It is increasingly important that competition be introduced into the political system. "Voters for None of the Above" offers a mainstream alternative. I discuss NOTA here.

*In Europe, with the exception of Britain, the chief ideologies of the twentieth century were mainly variants of the left, to include fascism, Nazism, communism and today's dirigisme.

**Concerning the abortion issue, William Saletan of Slate writes:

"...against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom...'There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.'...Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears...Admit the goal is zero, and people will rethink birth control. 'Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies'..."

But Clinton's argument, which transfers the moral concern about abortion into a discussion of abortion as a quality process, a quality target that needs to be minimized, is itself a form of draping.

Phil Orenstein Opposes NOTA and I Respond

Phil Orenstein writes of NOTA:

>"Mitchell,

"I am of two minds on this and I hesitated for a while to respond, but at least I owe you an explanation as a friend. While I understand and fully respect your commitment to ensuring the opportunity for a protest vote, I feel the "lesser of two evils" philosophy should remain the prevailing principle in elections. To take this to it's logical conclusion in the politics of the possible, I feel the presidential campaign would come down to a Clinton-Giuliani choice and any voter educated enough to grasp the real issues and the outright corruption of politics who would be a NOTA voter, would be one less vote for Giuliani, since I believe votes for Clinton come from the uniformed and brainwashed and 6-pack Joes of our country while votes for Giuliani would be from the more informed voters. That said, I deplore the corruption, deceit authoritarianism and utter lack of capable leadership today and especially the spineless Republican party which is now in the process of imploding, especially at the local level (i.e. Queens and NY State), and I understand the rationale for your proposal. In my other mind I would have to say, that many of the apathetic voters who don't show up at the polls, averaging 50% or more in many elections, who are turned off by the corruption and deceit in politics, might be convinced to participate in our democracy, if a protest vote could be registered. However my first mind now prevails as long as I continue to use the email signature below and still fighting for reform in the Republican Party, to which many of my friends and co-workers just shake their heads thinking I'm still tilting at windmills."

My reply to Phil:

1. The ability to offer true consent requires the ability to withhold consent. Voters do this now by remaining absent from the polls. I think it is worthwhile to permit those who want to participate in American democracy but have become convinced of its vacuity to voice their concern explicitly. At present, their views are unnecessarily suppressed by the absence of a "None of the above" (NOTA) option. NOTA increases the degree of choice, and the Republicans and Democrats fear it because neither party offers a meaningful alternative. Since democracy and utilitarianism means maximizing choice, inclusion of NOTA is the most democratic and utilitarian approach.

2. Disenfranchisement and disengagement is true on all sides of the political spectrum. I don't believe that NOTA would affect one candidate more than any other by very much. Many on the left as well as the right do not feel represented.

3. The two parties have more similarities than differences. For instance, I do not see Giuliani as significantly different from Clinton. In New York City, Giuliani failed to reduce the extent of government; catered to city's public sector unions; and oversaw a slight increase in the city's budget when adjusted for inflation. It is true that he is better on several key issues such as Iraq, health care and marginally on trade (although I don't believe that Giuliani has publicly stated that he would eliminate the sugar and other agricultural tariffs that are a national disgrace and that President Bush and the Republicans have supported).* However, these differences do not reflect a fundamental vision that is different from Hillary Clinton's.

4. Neither Giuliani nor Clinton address many of the key issues facing the nation. These include monetary depreciation and inflation, which no major candidate has chosen to discuss; special interest influence in Washington; excess government and regulation, to which both Giuliani and Clinton have been a party; the massive budget deficit that the Republicans have generated; the decline in public morality, most specifically the something-for-nothing mindset that has increasingly influenced Americans of all social positions and all ideological segments and motivated their support for the two political parties; the deterioration of the education system; the breakdown in the structure of democracy, to include gerrymandering and the increased ratio of population to congressional representation which serves politicians and special interests but not the electorate; and the steadfast resistance to clear financial information's being made available to the public through the Government Accounting Standards Board.

5. Neither Democrats nor Republicans propose a vision that reflects an underlying belief in liberty, in transparency, or in limited government. Although my personal opinion is that Giuliani is better than Clinton on issues like health care, Iraq and trade, both Clinton and Giuliani lack vision.

6. It is not clear that Giuliani's or Clinton's positions would translate into actual policy. President Bush did not tell the country that he favored big government. The differences between the parties are typically distorted by misrepresentation, special interest pandering and opportunism. There is no reason to believe that a President Giuliani would stand up to the health care lobby any more than President Bush stood up to the agricultural lobby.

7. Part of the ability of the candidates to mislead the public results from lack of choice. Such choice would be enhanced by NOTA

*See discussion on slickdeals.net:

The libertarian Cato Institute writes of ADM: The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30
Do you want to know who makes HFCS (high fructose corn syrup)? It's Archer Daniels Midland. Do you want to know who pays for HFCS? That's you and I, in the form of the taxes we pay to the U.S. Government. The government spent $41.9 billion on corn subsidies from 1995 to 2004, a trough of money at which ADM gladly ate. ADM buys 12 percent of the nation's corn at a heavily subsidized price from farmers, and turns it into high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol.

In Praise of NOTA (None of the Above)

I have a project in which I believe: None of the Above. I had a long conversation with Bill White on Tuesday. Bill founded Voters for NOTA in Massachusetts and introduced bills in both legislative houses to permit voters to register a vote for "none of the above". The bill isn't going anywhere in Massachusetts, but it's worth a college professor's try in New York as well. Back in the 1960s, Howard Jarvis, a 1962 California primary Senate candidate didn't see Proposition 13 pass until 1978, eight years before his death in 1986. I envision a similar bill being proposed in NY, and I think I will be the one to propose a bill to my legislators. Bill White has done all the heavy lifting, and NOTA is an idea whose time has come in New York State.

This is a good year for NOTA. There's very slim pickings among the presidential candidates in both parties. Newsmax reports that James Carville believes that the Democrats are stronger than the Republicans only because of the "complete implosion" of the Republican Party, not because of enthusiasm for the Democrats. Even so, reports Newsmax, Carville still believes that the Democrats "could still lose focus". One reason might be the way the candidates look. I still believe that, ugly as Carville is, he is still better looking than Hillary, although both are better looking than Rosie O'Donnell.

On October 3, the Sun reported that growing evidence that conservatives are concerned about the choices shaping up in the Republican primary race, and Mike Huckabee's increasing popularity among voters in caucus states, offers the former Arkansas governor a rare opportunity to become a serious contender. Instead, social conservatives are thinking of running a third party candidate.

Speaking as an advocate of hard money, limited government and the common man, I feel the same way. Candidates just aren't interested in the erosion of the dollar, presumably because they assume that since voters have been educated in American public schools, the subject is difficult for them.

Last week in Kingston, NY, a shopper on line behind me in Hannaford's Supermarket claimed that grocery prices have gone up six percent since July. At dinner on Monday night, my aunt, Norma of Manhattan, a retired bookkeeper, mentioned that she believed that the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics has been misleading the public by publishing inflation statistics that do not include food prices.

The only candidate who grasps the inflation issue is Ron Paul, but his views on Iraq are silly and his use of the phrase "Israel lobby" concerns me. Ryan Sager covers this matter here.

NOTA--A Reform Whose Time Has Come

I recently blogged that abstention or "none of the above" would be preferable to the Mickey Mouse choices that the Democratic and Republican parties are presenting to the voters and that abstention should be a ballot choice.
In an e-mail, Barry Campbell raised the question as to what would happen if "none of the above won"? I decided to do some research and learned that there is a group in Massachusetts called NOTA (none of the above) led by William White, a Masachusetts systems analyst. NOTA's website is excellent at http://www.nota.org/ and includes a video of a fine television interview with Mr. White. White has introduced legislation into both houses the Massachusetts state legislature and the senate bill (which appears on his site) follows. I am looking forward to learning more about NOTA

SENATE NO. 456
AN ACT FURTHER REGULATING ELECTIONS TO PROVIDE FOR A VOTER CONSENT “NONE OF THE ABOVE” OPTION
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled,
And by the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. 1

Whereas government should secure the consent of the governed;
Whereas all legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent;
Whereas voters can withhold their consent when voting on questions;
Whereas voters are sometimes presented with such choices on the ballot that none of the listed candidates for an office is acceptable, but voters are unable to withhold their consent to such elections to office.
Whereas Article VII of the Massachusetts Constitution states: “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.”;
Therefore, to insure the legitimate consent of voters by enabling them to withhold their consent to elections to office;
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
The General Laws are hereby amended by adding the following chapter:
CHAPTER 57A.
ELECTIONS WITH VOTER CONSENT “NONE OF THE ABOVE” OPTIONS 19

Section 1. None of the Above (NOTA) on the ballot
On all ballots electing a candidate to office there shall appear, after the list of candidates for each office, a votable line identified with the words “None of the Above; For a New Election”.
A voter may choose to vote for “None of the Above; For a New Election” instead of voting for a candidate. If a voter may vote for multiple candidates for an office, a vote for “None of the Above; For a New Election” counts as one vote. Votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” shall be counted and reported as are votes for listed candidates.
Section 2. When a candidate receives fewer votes than NOTA
Any candidate for office who receives fewer votes than the votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” for that office shall not be elected.
Section 3. NOTA election
In any election where no candidate is elected to an office because of votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election”, a None of the Above, hereinafter referred to as NOTA, Election shall be held to fill that office not less than sixty (60) days and not more than eighty (80) days after the prior election.
Section 4. Election of the President of the United States
In elections to the offices of President and Vice President of the United States and their electors, “Prefer None of the Above” shall appear after the list of candidates. Voters may choose to vote both for “Prefer None of the Above” as well as for a candidate. Votes cast for “Prefer None of the
Above” shall be counted and reported in the same manner as are votes for listed candidates, but shall not otherwise affect the election outcome.

Section 5. Statement about NOTA options
The Secretary of State shall prepare a statement titled “Your Voter Consent Ballot Options:”, to be displayed, along with any other materials determined by the Secretary of State, so it is legible to voters at the polling place prior to voting as well as within each voting enclosure, indicating the options available to the voter. For example, such a statement might contain the following:
Your Voter Consent Ballot Options: 47
YOU MAY VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE OR “None of the Above; For a New 48
Election”. 49


O Candidate A
O Candidate B
O None of the Above; For a New Election
When “None of the Above; For a New Election” appears on the ballot after the list of candidates for an office, then you may vote for

“None of the Above; For a New 54
Election” instead of voting for a candidate. If you may vote for more than one candidate for an office, then a vote for


“None of the Above; For a New Election” counts as one vote.
If “None of the Above; For a New Election” receives more votes for an office than any candidate, then no one is elected to that office and a new election with new candidates must be held, not less than 60 days and not more that 80 days after this election, to fill the office.

YOU MAY VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE AND FOR “Prefer None of the Above.”

O Candidate A
O Candidate B
O Prefer None of the Above

When “Prefer None of the Above” appears on the ballot after the list of candidates for an office, you may vote for a candidate and also vote for

“Prefer None of the Above”. Voting for “Prefer None of the Above” indicates you found no listed candidate acceptable.


The “Prefer None of the Above” votes are counted and reported; however, the candidate for an office with the most votes is elected whatever the

“Prefer None of the
Above” vote.

Section 6. Temporary appointment to offices and assignment of duties
Temporary appointment to offices, pending NOTA elections and an elected candidate taking office, required to execute the duties of an office, may be made by the Governor, or by majority vote of the Board of Selectmen for town offices, provided the person so appointed is either the office’s current incumbent or would be otherwise eligible for election to that office. Temporary appointment to the office of Governor shall be by majority vote of the General Court. No temporary appointment under this provision shall be made to the offices of Town Meeting Representative, State Representative, State Senator, United States Representative, or United States

Senator.
If no appointment is made by the day before expiration of an office’s current term, the office’s incumbent is appointed by default.
In elections to the office of Secretary of State, or an office for which the incumbent Secretary of State is a candidate, the duties normally performed by the Secretary of State under this act shall be performed by the office of Secretary of State under the direction of the Attorney General.
Section 7. Campaign finance reporting
Candidates in a NOTA election must conform to the same, or equivalent, campaign financing and reporting requirements as a candidate for that office in a general election. Campaign financing and reporting for activities related to the issue of voters voting for “None of the Above; For
a New Election”, or for “Prefer None of the Above”, shall have the same, or equivalent, requirements as a ballot question. All such requirements shall be subject to those changes necessary, as determined by the Secretary of State, to adjust for the varying election dates and campaign durations of NOTA elections, provided such changes adhere to the original intent of those requirements and avoid unreasonable burden to election participants.

Section 8. Nomination of candidates
Any person who is eligible for nomination as a candidate in the general election for an office shall be eligible for nomination as a candidate in a NOTA election for that office, provided the person did not receive, as a listed candidate in a prior election for the same office and term, fewer votes than those cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” the office.
All candidates for office in NOTA elections shall be nominated to be listed on the ballot either by nominating petition, or by receiving a requisite number of write-in votes in the prior election for that office.
Section 9. Nomination by petition; eligibility to sign petitions; collecting signatures at polling places
The nomination period for a NOTA election shall commence on the day of the prior election. The nomination period shall continue for fourteen (14) days after the results of the prior election for that office are announced by the Secretary of State.
Voters eligible to vote in the NOTA election for an office are eligible to sign, once for each nomination, one or more nominating petitions for one or more candidates for that office during the nomination period.
Signatures for nominating petitions may be gathered at polling places, provided they are gathered in one, or two if required, Petition Areas that shall be reserved at each polling place for such purpose, and in such a manner as to provide easy access for voters wishing to sign such petitions or not, and in such a manner that voters shall pass by those collecting nominating signatures before and after voting.

Any person collecting nominating signatures at a polling place for one or more petitions, hereinafter referred to as Collector, must be registered to vote at that polling place. A Collector may assist in the gathering of signatures for any Nominating Petition. No signed petition may be removed from a Petition Area, except, after the polls close, by the vote counting authority, who shall deliver all signed petitions to the signature verifying authority.
The Collector shall be seated in a chair behind a table, provided at no cost to the Collector, upon which such petitions shall be placed and kept while collecting signatures. The Collector shall not speak to, or otherwise communicate with, any voter unless addressed first by that voter, and shall display no sign except, optionally, one reading “Nominating Petition: ”, where shall be the name of the office for which the petition is being gathered, using letters no greater than three inches in height and affixed to the table in such a manner as to be visible to passing voters. The number of Collectors in each Petition Area shall be no more than two (2) per one (1) or more petition sheets with the same Candidate and Party designation. A petition may be brought into and left unattended in the Petition Area by any person.
The Petition Area shall be part to the polling place, and any person failing to conform to its requirements shall be considered a disorderly person.

Section 10. Nomination by write-in

An unlisted write-in candidate in the prior election may be nominated to be listed as a candidate for an office in the following NOTA election by receiving write-in votes equal to at least ten percent (10%) of either: a) the number of nominating signatures required for that office; or, b) the total votes cast for the office in the current election. Such candidates shall submit to the Town Clerk in town wide offices, or otherwise the Secretary of State, by the last day of the nomination period, a completed nominating petition, containing no filled in signature lines, with an attached affirmation by the candidate, stating the candidate received the requisite write-in votes for that office in the prior election. Unlisted write-in candidates who do not receive the number of write-in votes needed for nomination may seek nomination by petition.

Section 11. Signature verification; number of signatures required; submitting petitions
The authority responsible for signature verification for nominations for a office in the general election shall be responsible for verifying the signatures on the nominating petitions for a NOTA election are valid and of the requisite number within fourteen (14) days after the end of the nomination period.
The number of valid signatures under the same party designation required for nomination by petition shall be the same for all candidates for the same office and shall be: either equal to the number of the most signatures required for a general election nomination for the office, divided by number of days in the general election nomination period, and then multiplied by number of days in the current nomination period, and then divided by three (3); or, equal to twenty (20), whichever is greater.
Each original nominating petition sheet shall be submitted to the offices of the same verifying authority as for general elections, within three (3) days after the end of the nomination period.

Section 12. Multiple nominations of a candidate
In NOTA elections, if a candidate has been separately nominated with different political party designations, the candidate shall appear on the ballot separately for each such nomination. The same political party designation may not appear with more candidates for an office than the number of positions to be elected to that office. The party designation of either “No Party” or “Write-In” shall be allowed once each for a candidate so nominated.
Section 13. Nomination notification and acceptance
The Secretary of State, or Town Clerk for town wide elections, shall have delivered to each nominee, within three (3) days of the nominee qualifying for the nomination, a Nomination Notification, notifying the nominee of the nomination, along with other materials determined by the Secretary of State. The nominee shall respond to the Nomination Notification within five (5) days by returning the Nomination Acceptance, as determined by the Secretary of State, to the offices of the notifying authority. Failure to respond shall be deemed an acceptance of the nomination.
Section 14. Candidate Statement; requirements and limitations; qualifying for distribution
To assist the voters in assessing candidates for office in NOTA elections, the Secretary of State, or Town Clerk for town wide elections, shall distribute Candidate Statements by mail to the electorate at least seven (7) days before the election at no cost to the candidates.
When a candidate submits a Nomination Acceptance for an office, the candidate may also submit a Candidate Statement for distribution, which shall be subject to the following
requirements and limitations: required to be a black and white statement, consisting only of spaces, letters, punctuation marks, and numeric or other textual notation, contained within both sides of a single 8.5 x 11 inch white paper sheet, and, optionally, one photograph of the candidate from the neck up no greater than 3 x 3 inches, for the purpose of allowing the candidate to communicate with the voters; and, shall be limited to identifying the candidate, and, optionally, describing the candidate’s qualifications for office, party affiliations, proposed policies, and contact information; limited to one per candidate, even if the candidate receives multiple nominations for an office; and, shall contain no solicitation for funds nor refer to other candidates. The requirements and limitations of the Candidate Statement must be met, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, in order to qualify for distribution as a Candidate Statement

Across the top inch of the first page of every Candidate Statement shall be the Statement Header. The Statement Header shall be blank except for the state seal and the words, in large font, “Candidate Statement of for ”, where shall be the name of the candidate as it shall appear on the ballot and shall be the name of the office as it shall appear on the ballot; and then, in a smaller font, “Prepared by the candidate and distributed to voters without cost to the candidate by the Office of the Secretary of State.”; and then, a line at the lower boundary of the Statement Header; and, anywhere within the Statement Header, any other content determined by the Secretary of State. At Nomination Notification, the candidate shall receive sample Candidate Statements and an assigned Statement Header from the Secretary of State that the candidate is required to use as the Statement Header for any Candidate Statement the candidate submits.
The area of the Candidate Statement apart from the Statement Header is the Candidate Content determined by the candidate. The Secretary of State, or Town Clerk for town elections, shall
take care to distribute Candidate Content as submitted, except as follows: The Secretary of State, and the Town Clerk for town elections, shall review Candidate Statements submitted to them to insure they qualify for distribution as a Candidate Statement. The Town Clerk shall have delivered to the Secretary of State all Candidate Statements, along with their Candidate Instructions, if any, for final review, within three (3) days of receipt, along with a Town Clerk Opinion, defined by the Secretary of State, indicating whether the Candidate Statement meets the requirements and limits of a Candidate Statement.

If, in the opinion of the Town Clerk, a Candidate Statement does not meet the requirements and limits of a Candidate Statement, the Town Clerk Opinion shall include an explanation of the nonconformance, along with a proposed Deletion Notification to make the Candidate Statement conformant, and any other relevant document. Before submitting the Town Clerk Opinion to the Secretary of State, the Town Clerk may contact the candidate directly to verbally suggest changes to the Candidate Statement to make it conformant. If the candidate then submits one or more revised drafts, the Town Clerk shall submit the last such draft as the Candidate Statement, retaining prior drafts as part of the Candidate Statement’s record.
Should the Secretary of State determine a Candidate Statement does not qualify for distribution because it does not meet the requirements and limits of a Candidate Statement, then the Secretary of State shall have delivered to the candidate, within ten (10) days of the submission of the Candidate Statement by the candidate, a Deletion Notification, defined by the Secretary of State, which shall include a copy of the Candidate Statement to show the deletions needed to bring the statement into compliance and a letter stating the reasons for those deletions. The Secretary of State, or representative, shall meet with the candidate at the offices of the Secretary of State, upon the candidate’s request, within two (2) days of receipt of a request for such a meeting, to review the
Candidate Statement with the candidate’s representatives. The candidate shall have delivered to the Secretary of State within five (5) days of the receipt of the Deletion Notification or within two (2) days after such meeting, whichever is later: the candidate’s response to the Deletion Notification; and/or a corrected Candidate Statement; and/or a Candidate Instruction, to be defined by the Secretary of State, in the event of a non qualifying Candidate Statement, instructing Secretary of State either to withdraw the Candidate Statement completely or to distribute the original Candidate Statement with the deletions indicated by the Deletion Notification.

Changes to the Candidate Content by Secretary of State shall be by deletion only, using methods to be established in advance of the election by Secretary of State so as to be obvious to voters which parts of the Candidate Content were deleted. Should the candidate fail to provide an acceptable, corrected Candidate Statement and fail to provide Candidate Instructions for such an event, the Secretary of State shall distribute the original Candidate Statement with the deletions specified in the Deletion Notification. The Secretary of State shall make available at its offices to any person, within one day of a written request, copies of any original Candidate Statement as well as associated Town Clerk Opinion, corrected Candidate Statement, Deletion Notification, and Candidate Instruction, and other related documents during the election campaign and for ten (10) years after the election.
Whenever possible, all Candidate Statements for the same office shall be assembled into a single ballot pamphlet for distribution. Reference copies of the Candidate Statements shall be made available at polling places for voter use.
Section 15. Confirming nominations
The Secretary of State, or Town Clerk for town wide elections, shall confirm by Party Confirmation, as defined by the Secretary of State, with the governing body of the designated political party, that the party accepts the party designation on the ballot for a candidate. If the party designation
of the nomination is not accepted by the governing body of the party within ten (10) days of notification, or if the authority of the governing body is determined by the Secretary of State to be in dispute, then the candidate shall be listed with a “No Party” party designation. Write-in nominations shall be designated as “Write-In”, or with any other political party designation acceptable to both the candidate and the governing body of the political party.

Section 16. Ballot determination; election date determination
The Secretary of State shall determine the date, offices, and candidate lists for NOTA elections, and shall announce such determinations, whenever possible, at least thirty days in advance of the date set for the NOTA election.
The Secretary of State shall insure, whenever possible, various NOTA Elections take place throughout the state on the same day.
Section 17. Counting votes; recounts
In cases of multiple listings of a candidate for an office, the number of votes cast for each such listing of a candidate shall be counted and reported separately; however, the sum of all votes for a candidate for an office shall be used in determining the candidate’s vote for election to the office.
A qualified write-in candidate who receives more votes than any listed candidate, and more votes than any other write-in candidate, and more votes than “None of the Above; For a New Election” for that office shall be elected.
The Secretary of State shall conduct a recount of any election where the number votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” would require, or would allow a candidate to request, a recount if that number of votes had been cast for a candidate, and otherwise act on behalf of voters who cast votes for “None of the Above; For a New Election.” Delegation of this duty to the
Secretary of State shall in no way limit voters, who affirm they voted for “None of the Above; For a New Election” in an election, from also acting on behalf of themselves and other such voters.

Section 18. Failure to nominate
Should no candidate qualify for nomination for an office in a NOTA Election, the office shall appear on the ballot with no listed candidate with only the “None of the Above; For a New Election” line.
Section 19. Nominating Petition Description
The nominating petitions shall consist of 8.5 x 11 inch white paper with the first printed title line reading “NOTA Election Nominating Petition”;
The next printed line shall state: “To be signed only by voters eligible to vote for the office.”;
The next printed line of the petition shall state: “For the office of: ”, followed immediately by the title the office, as it appears on the ballot, for which the candidate is to be nominated; and, followed immediately by the text “ for ”; and, followed by the jurisdiction of the office;
The next printed line of the petition shall state: “Nominating: ”, followed immediately by the candidate’s legal name and, optionally, in quotes, an informal name, as it is intended to appear on the ballot;
The next printed line of the petition shall state: “Whose legal address is: ”, followed immediately by the candidate’s legal address, as it is intended to appear on the ballot;
The next printed line of the petition shall state: “Political Party: ”, followed immediately by the name of the political party, as it is intended to appear on the ballot. “No Party” is
permitted. “Write-In” is permitted for candidates nominated by write-in votes; and, “For the Town or City:”, followed immediately by the name of the town or city where the signers below must be registered to vote.

The next printed line shall identify the appropriate columns for voters to fill out with the words “Voter’s Name (print)”; “Street Address”; “Signature”; “Date”;
There shall follow sixteen (16) thin, straight lines, indicating the space for the voter to make a nomination.
Section 20. Petition Sample
NOTA Election Nominating Petition
To be signed only by voters eligible to vote for the office.
For the office of: United States Representative for 5th Congressional District
Nominating: William P. Doe “Billy Doe”
Whose legal address is: 600 Elm Street, Harvard, MA 01451
Political Party: No Party For the Town or City: Harvard
Voter’s Name (print) Street Address Signature Date m/d/y

Section 21. Conflicting provisions
The provisions of this act shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of any other law.
Section 22. Severability
The provisions of this act are severable, and if any of its provisions shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions.
Section 23. Effective date
The provisions of this act shall take effect two (2) years after enactment