NV: None of these Candidates?

[TommyC1776]

How come Nevada has this on their ballot?  It seems like it's always on their.

From,

K4P.

[Alcon]

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

[Padfoot]

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.
[/quote

Yes I read that too.  Nevada has had the law since 1975 - and it always wins a few votes. 

[Alcon]

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.

I'm only passing along what I've heard.  That seems totally pointless, if that's true.  You're probably right...no wonder we voted it down!

[minionofmidas]

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.

I'm only passing along what I've heard.  That seems totally pointless, if that's true.  You're probably right...no wonder we voted it down!

Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.

[Joe Republic]

In 1996, the 'none of these candidates' option won more votes than Clinton's margin of victory in Nevada.

[Verily]

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.

I'm only passing along what I've heard.  That seems totally pointless, if that's true.  You're probably right...no wonder we voted it down!

Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.

Louisiana does.

[jimrtex]

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.

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 his choice of that line in the same manner as he would express his 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.

[jimrtex]

Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.

Louisiana does.

Louisiana did.

Until 1997, Louisiana held its general election in October, and would only hold runoffs where no candidate had a majority on the November election day.

In Foster v. Love (No. 96-670) this was challenged as being in violation of the date set by Congress for electing representatives and senators.  The USSC ruled that since in the overwhelming majority of cases no election was held in November, that this violated the federal statute.

The federal district court then modified the process specified by Louisiana law to hold the election in November, with any runoffs to follow.  The Louisiana legislature later modified the Louisiana laws to follow the court decision (they have since changed this for future congressional elections).

The group that challenged the Louisiana law, also challenged the Texas early voting law, claiming that since a large share of votes were cast before election day, the voters weren't choosing their representatives on election day.  This case never got to the USSC, with lower courts ruling that early voting was not significantly different from absentee voting by mail; and that since Congress mandates absentee voting by mail for some persons, they couldn't literally mean that all votes must be cast on election day.

I'd guess if Nevada law provided for a new election if NOTC won, it would conform to current federal law.

[Verily]

Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.

Louisiana does.

Louisiana did.

Until 1997, Louisiana held its general election in October, and would only hold runoffs where no candidate had a majority on the November election day.

In Foster v. Love (No. 96-670) this was challenged as being in violation of the date set by Congress for electing representatives and senators.  The USSC ruled that since in the overwhelming majority of cases no election was held in November, that this violated the federal statute.

The federal district court then modified the process specified by Louisiana law to hold the election in November, with any runoffs to follow.  The Louisiana legislature later modified the Louisiana laws to follow the court decision (they have since changed this for future congressional elections).

The group that challenged the Louisiana law, also challenged the Texas early voting law, claiming that since a large share of votes were cast before election day, the voters weren't choosing their representatives on election day.  This case never got to the USSC, with lower courts ruling that early voting was not significantly different from absentee voting by mail; and that since Congress mandates absentee voting by mail for some persons, they couldn't literally mean that all votes must be cast on election day.

I'd guess if Nevada law provided for a new election if NOTC won, it would conform to current federal law.

The point was that the new election would have to be held on a day other than Election Day--but so too are Louisiana's runoffs.

[jimrtex]

Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.

Louisiana does.

Louisiana did.

Until 1997, Louisiana held its general election in October, and would only hold runoffs where no candidate had a majority on the November election day.

In Foster v. Love (No. 96-670) this was challenged as being in violation of the date set by Congress for electing representatives and senators.  The USSC ruled that since in the overwhelming majority of cases no election was held in November, that this violated the federal statute.

The federal district court then modified the process specified by Louisiana law to hold the election in November, with any runoffs to follow.  The Louisiana legislature later modified the Louisiana laws to follow the court decision (they have since changed this for future congressional elections).

The group that challenged the Louisiana law, also challenged the Texas early voting law, claiming that since a large share of votes were cast before election day, the voters weren't choosing their representatives on election day.  This case never got to the USSC, with lower courts ruling that early voting was not significantly different from absentee voting by mail; and that since Congress mandates absentee voting by mail for some persons, they couldn't literally mean that all votes must be cast on election day.

I'd guess if Nevada law provided for a new election if NOTC won, it would conform to current federal law.

The point was that the new election would have to be held on a day other than Election Day--but so too are Louisiana's runoffs.

Louisiana now holds its main election for representatives in November.  Before 1998, it held it in October.

As noted in Foster v Love, 2 USC § 8, does provide for runoff elections:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In some instances, Louisiana fails to elect its representative on the November election day.  Similarly, Nevada could hold a new election in the case where None of These Candidates had the most votes.   However, Nevada did not make that choice.