ing, or politicians and government in general.rnOne of the most dramatie examples of NOTA encouragingrndemocratic reform occurred in the former Marxist-Leninist nationsrnof Eastern Europe, hi March 1989, semifree elections forrnthe Congress of People’s Deputies were held in the SovietrnL’nion for the first time since the Russian Revolution. Morernthan 90 percent of the candidates -were members of the ComniunistrnParty. Opposition political parties were precnted fromrnorganizing. But tlie Russian people were empowered, analystrnSteve Lilienthal of the Free Congress Foundation noted, “byrnthe election law permitting them to cross out the names of candidatesrnthey found unacceptable.” T’he New York Times reportedrnthat “by crossing them [the candidates] all out” the Russianrnpeople east their ballots “for the equivalent of ‘none of thernaboe.'” NOTA emerged as a critical factor because CommunistrnParty candidates needed a majority vote to win election.rnWithin days of the election, the Washington Post reported thatrnin more than 150 of the 1,500 districts where the electoralrnchoice was limited to Communist Party apparatchiks, “a majorityrnof voters crossed out every name on the ballot, forcing newrnelections.” One Moscow-based diplomat observed, “It is hardrnto imagine the public shame of running against yourself—andrnlosing.” In runoff elections, more than 100 communist candidatesrnwere defeated.rnThe NOTA process was repeated in June 1989 in Poland,rnwhere ‘oters were able to cross off the names of candidates theyrnrejected. Among the unopposed communists defeated wasrnPolisli Prime Minister Micezyslaw Rakowski and seven otherrnmembers of the ruling Politburo. The Economist reported:rn”Poles delighted in crossing out the names of top officials, justrnas Soiet ‘oters had done in March.” The New York limes reported,rn”More unsettling, though [to the Communist Party],rnwas the negative ‘ote.” In runoff elections, candidates endorsedrnby the long-banned free trade union Solidarity won arnmajority of the open scats. “NOTA is not nihilism,” Lilienthalrnsaid. “Instead, it expresses the belief that they (voters) shouldrnbe able to elect leaders truly worthy of their trust.”rnAmericans interested in NOT^ need not look as far as Polandrnor the former Soiet Union. Neada has used a nonbindingrnNOIA since 1976. The state’s law reads, in part:rnEvery ballot upon which appears the names of candidatesrnfor any statewide offices or for President and Vice Presidentrnof the United States shall contain for each office anrnadditional line equi’alent to the lines on which the candidates’rnnames appear and placed at the end of the grouprnof lines containing the names of the candidates for thatrnoffice. Each additional line shall contain a square inrnwhich the voter may express his choice of that line in thernsame manner as he would express liis choice of a candidate,rnand the line .shall read “None of these candidates.”rnUnder Nevada law, if NOTA receives a majority vote, the humanrncandidate receiving the next highest vote total still winsrnthe election. “Although ‘None Of These Candidates’ cannotrnaetualK’ win the race,” Nevada Secretary of State Cherl A. Laurnexplained, “it is an opportunity for voters to register opposition.”rnOr embarrass an unresponsive incumbent politician.rnAccording to Nevada election records, NOTA placed ahead ofrnboth Republican Ceorge Bush and Democrat Ted Kennedy inrnthe state’s 1980 presidential primaries. Then-President JimmyrnCarter barely defeated N O T A that ear, winning 38 percent tornNOTE’S 54 percent. NOTA has hnished first in Nevada electionsrnin 1976,1978, and 1986. These victories have occurred inrnRepublican congressional primaries and a Democratic primaryrnfor state treasurer.rnNevada’s experiment with NOTA has attracted the attentionrnof legislators in other Western states. In 1993, Colorado StaternSenator Tilman Bishop, a Republican, introduced bindingrnNOTA legislation that would apply in federal as well as staternelections. Texas State Representative Bill) demons, a Republican,rnsponsored a bill the same year that includes a nonbindingrnNOTA option in county and state elections. In 1994, then-rnCalifornia Acting Secretary of State Tony Miller observed ofrnNeada’s experience with NOTA: “It has not been abused norrnhas it been disruptive to the process. But it has given Neadarnvoters another choice and they have occasionally opted for it.rnGood for them!”rnUnixersity of Nevada-Reno political science professor Dr.rnRobert Morin notes that NOTA “has been employed judiciously”rnby T.)ters in the state. “NOTA has received a plurality ofrnvotes on only four occasions since 1976,” he said. Although notrnexamined through empirical research, “NOTA has appeared tornimpact campaign practices in Nevada,” including its fosteringrnof cleaner elections devoid of negative campaigning. “ThernNevada experience with [NOTA] . . . indicates few argumentsrnin opposition to this ballot option . . . [its] existence and usern. . . has not resulted in disruption to the political process or tornthe governmental system . . . there is no movement [for its] repeal,”rnDr. Morin concludes.rnDon Mello, the former assemblyman who successfullyrnsteered a NOTA bill through the Nevada legislature in the mid-rn1970’s, contends it has had a positive impact on politics in thernstate. Mello said that N O T A acts as “a humiliation tactic”rnagainst candidates, forcing those who lose to NOTA or whornbarely defeat it to reconsider their practices upon entering ofhcc.rnBut does Nevada’s NOTA law go far enough? Mcllo’s originalrnbill would have provided for a special election when NO! Arnreceived a majorit’ vote, but this provision was dropped prior tornfinal passage. Thus, the full impact that NOTA may have on anrnabusix e political system will not be felt so long as Nevada is unablernto provide a binding option that requires a special electionrnif NOTA wins.rnBuoed by the Nevada experience, support for a bindingrnNOTA has grown across the political spectrum. The conceptrnhas supporters on the political left and right, and amongrnPerotistas who consider themselves advocates of good government.rnRalph Nader has championed NOTA as “a proper andrnlong overdue expansion of voting choice at a time when citizensrnare stas’ing away from the polls in droves because of their disgust,rndistrust, despair, and disillu.sionment with tweedledumtweedledeernpolities.” The Green Party, whose ticket Nader isrnrunning on for President this year, has used NOTA in its Californiarnprimary. Nader contends “the NOTA ability to say NOrnis also the ability to say ES to better quality candidates andrnelectoral competitions that arc not so heavily decided by moneyrnand the advantages of incumbcnc.”rnNader supports a binding NOTA. “Arguments about therncost of a second election,” he maintains, “jjale compared withrnthe lack of substantive choices for quality candidates and ‘politicsrnas usual’ run by cash-register politicians. Nothing is morerncostls’ than the control of nominations and elections by whatrnThomas Jefferson called ‘the monied interests.'” He predictsrnNOVEMBER 1996/19rnrnrn