George Leef explains for Forbes readers a proposal that would enable voters to channel their disgust with all of the bad options open to them on the electoral ballot.
What if we changed our electoral system by allowing the voter to cast a negative ballot? That is, the voter could choose to cast a vote in favor of the candidate he likes the most, or against the candidate he dislikes the most.
We have lots of negative ads (sometimes accurate, sometimes misleading, but that’s beside the point), so why not let voters cast their ballots negatively? After all, an individual’s strongest political desire might be to see a particular candidate defeated. Voting for the least bad challenger (or none of them) isn’t the same.
How would it work?
A state would have to amend its election law so that ballots would instruct the voter that for each office, he or she may vote for one candidate or against one candidate. Instead of the usual box next to each candidate, there would be two boxes – “for” and “against.” In tabulating the results, each candidate’s total would be the “for” votes minus the “against” votes.
The winner would be the candidate with the highest total – the largest plus number or conceivably, the smallest negative number. In other words, victory would go to the candidate with the highest net favorability.
Would this change make any difference?
I think that it might, for several reasons.
First, it could increase voter participation. I’m not among those who regards low turnout as bad — indicating poor health for our democracy — but no doubt there are many people who don’t bother to register and vote because they’re convinced that voting for the lesser of evils is a waste of time. The chance to vote against the perceived greatest evil might appeal to quite a few of them.
Second, it could make minor party candidates competitive. In a race where the two major party candidates have high negatives and devote the campaign to blasting at each other like two ships-of-the-line, a high percentage of votes might be cast against them. Their plus totals therefore might end up very low – low enough that the winner could be a Libertarian, Green, or independent candidate who elicited little or no opposition. And after some minor party victories, voters and the media would begin to pay more attention to those candidates, thereby breaking the Democratic/Republican oligopoly.
Third, polling would change. Rather than asking voters whether they plan to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B, pollsters would ask them if they intend to vote against any candidate. Consequently, reporting “for” and “against” poll numbers could lead to increased political engagement, as voters think about their choice more carefully. Are there stronger reasons to vote for A or against B?
