Blank Ballots More Likely in Races with Same-Party Candidates
By Richard Winger on 03/21/2013 in blank ballot, california, elections, electoral reform, Independent Voters with 9 CommentsRead Time: 2 - 4 minutes
At the November 2012 elections for U.S. House and Assembly, thousands of voters went to the polls, but left their ballots blank for either or both of those two offices. When all the U.S. House and Assembly races are looked at together, one finds that only 90.38% of the possible votes for those two offices were actually cast.
Almost 10% of the possible votes were “blanks”; the voter looked at the ballot and chose to skip that race.
When one breaks down the data according to the type of race, the conclusion can be drawn that many voters will not participate in a general election race that only has two candidates from the same party. In those races, the blanks rose to 16.01 percent.
In other words, one-sixth of the voters, seeing a race with only two candidates from the same party, effectively cast a “none of the above” vote.
One might object that this data only represents one election in one state and that is a valid point. However, further study at this point is not easy because the only other state with a top-two system like California is Washington, and Washington has not yet had any congressional races with two candidates from the same party on the November ballot.
Also, Washington state doesn’t provide data on the number of ballots cast within any particular district the way California does.
In the races with an independent candidate versus a major party candidate, the “none of the above” percentage was 9.39 percent. In races with only one candidate on the ballot (there were only two of those, both Assembly races), the “none of the above” vote amounted to 25.01 percent.
Finally, in the one Assembly race between a major party candidate and a minor party candidate (there were no U.S. House races like that), the “none of the above” vote was 12.09 percent.
The fewest “none of the above” votes, not surprisingly, were cast in U.S. House and Assembly races with one Democrat and one Republican. In those races, the “NOTA” vote was only 7.81 percent.
In November 2012, among the races that had at least two candidates on the ballot, the biggest “NOTA” vote was in the 31st Congressional District, where 23.14 percent of the voters chose to leave the office blank. That was a Democratic district, yet the only two candidates on the November ballot were two Republicans, Gary Miller (who won) and Bob Dutton.





Leave Your Comment →
9 Comments
Shawn M. Griffiths
03.21.2013
@shawntx
I am curious to know what the NOTA vote was in these elections in 2008 and 2010. The counter-argument is not that these races are in one state, but questioning if these voters left their ballot blank solely because the race had two candidates from the same party. I’ve left specific races blank because my knowledge on the candidates were limited and I don’t like to do a “flip-of-the-coin” vote. I’d rather just leave it blank than vote blindly. The nearly ten percent could be strict partisans who do not care one way or the other which candidate wins because they are in the same party. The percentage could include independent voters who didn’t vote for either candidate because of philosophical differences. The right to vote includes the right to abstain. There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from these results.
Richard Winger
03.21.2013
The only research I did for earlier elections than 2012 is that in November 2010 in California, for all the U.S. Houses together, the “none” vote was 6.33%.
Alex Gauthier
03.21.2013
@alexg
I’m not sure the two are necessarily comparable. In a midterm year, the more dedicated voters are apt to turn out so that may be a factor as well. It would be interesting to look at how the differences in midterms and national election years compare when looking at blank ballots, as well as what the trend is with two same-party candidates.
Lucas Eaves
03.21.2013
@lucaseaves
I see the point of saying that with same party races, the number of people who choose neither candidate might rise. But the number of people who do make their voice heard and will have an impact on the result will still be higher than during the primaries where the turnout is low and in most cases only party affiliated voters can vote. And in many cases elections are decided in theses primaries. So i will take a higher abstention rate over the classic primary system.
Chad Peace
03.21.2013
@Chad_Peace
Agreed.
Richard Winger
03.22.2013
In a normal partisan system, if a state has lenient procedures for independent candidates to get on the November ballot, and a petition deadline that is later than the primary, then the primaries don’t need to determine the November choices all by themselves. For example, in Florida in 2010, in the US Senate race, Governor Charlie Crist was easily able to get on the November ballot as an independent candidate (Florida doesn’t require any signatures at all for an independent candidate). Although Crist didn’t win, he placed 2nd and came fairly close to winning. Also in Connecticut in 2006, Senator Joe Lieberman was able to get on the November ballot as an independent even though he had lost the Democratic primary, and he did win in November. The best way to make sure that the partisan primaries don’t ruin choice in November is to have lenient ballot access in November for independent candidates.
Steve Peace
03.26.2013
Richard,
With all do respect — blank ballots — so what. Political types continue to insist on making decisions FOR voters. Many people have promoted the notion of including “none of the above” as a choice. Isn’t that what a blank ballot is? Nonpartisan primaries give voters more choices in the primary. Over time that will increase voter turnout in primaries as voters become accustom to the change and campaigns adjust to the system. Minor parties will also adjust and learn that nonpartisan primaries give them a chance to actually win seats. The sooner that those rooted in the past — by habit, closed minds, or financial interest — stop inventing circular arguments against change the sooner those involved in minor parties will see success. That is, of course, if your goal is getting people elected. If the goal is just to play spoiler for the two big parties, of course, then bring back closed primaries and two party rule. The behind the scenes dirty little secret is, of course, that many of the so-called minor party candidates are really put on the ballot by major party political operatives in order to siphon votes away from their major party opponents. Historically in California, Republicans have “encouraged” Green/Peace and Freedom candidates to get on the ballot and Democrats “encouraged” Libertarians. Effective governing requires coalition building. If Libertarians and Greens want to be a part of governing they have a great opportunity to work together along with nonpartisan voters and independent thinking Democrats and Republicans to affect change and be a part of governing. For many, unfortunately, their political lives have been built around the comfort of always losing. If you always lose you never have to take responsibility for outcomes and you get to make great speeches railing against “The Man”. Those of you who sincerely believe in the old partisanship are being driven over a cliff by those who are either emotionally of financially rewarded by keeping you irrelevant. The voters are the losers in this binary game.
Steve
Richard Winger
04.01.2013
Louisiana has used the top-two system for state office ever since 1975, and there is not one instance when a minor party candidate placed first or second (unless there was only one major party member running). That is 38 years of experience. Isn’t that enough to persuade you that the model in your head doesn’t correspond to reality? Voters only look serious at minor party candidates after the primaries are over.
Quobgoccums
04.09.2013
An impressive share, I just given this onto a colleague who was performing a little analysis on this. And he in truth purchased me breakfast due to the fact I identified it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the treat! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love reading additional on this topic. If possible, as you develop into expertise, would you mind updating your blog with much more details? It is actually highly helpful for me. Massive thumb up for this blog post!
kors by michael kors
cheap michael kors watch