Talk:None of the above

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Komalbadesha. Peer reviewers: Brandonqin, Ryanliou, Tasmia.r.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

Articles about elections in Brazil around Wikipedia all clearly state that Brazil has NOTA options in elections.--86.129.139.149 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2005 - 2007 Topics

I think, "None of the Above" is used in Presidential Elections in Russia. 80.185.152.212 16:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster's Millions (1985 film)

Isn't it nonsensical to call someone a "NOTA candidate?". Ralph Nader ran as a Green Party (I think) candidate. If you're on the ballot, you're a candidate. If you're not on the ballot, people can write you in as a (wait for it) write-in candidate.

Ralph Nader happens to be a proponent of NOTA being a binding option on ballots. (See the discussion and footnote at Ralph Nader). Presumably his candidacy was meant to highlight the dissatisfaction that many felt towards the present two-party system. But I don't think it helps anything to coin the phrase "NOTA candidate." Petershank 21:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- On the idea of RON, it is often refered to as a RON candidate in the election regulations, especially in multimember elections. in fact if you don't object, i'll edit the main page to say how the surplus for RON is distributed. 82.39.189.3 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Spuddy345[reply]

I Suggest splitting RON from this page. It is a distinct concept in elections and should be discussed in more detail elsewhere. Spuddy345 21:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Spuddy345[reply]

Reopening negociations is one responce to a NOTA vote, the RON vote just makes this explicit. The other obvious responce is to ignore it, but others are possible137.44.1.200 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book entitled, "None of the Above" by Sy Leon

Adding a reference to this book would help those researching the subject. I just finished reading it, and it's very relevant. Shazazzily (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Shazazzily[reply]

Proposal to split off the RON topic

AGAINST. This topic is an inherent part of NOTA, and without it the NOTA article would be incomplete. Neuralwarp (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and will remove the tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference from Abstention

I used to be an election official, and races for which a voter did not cast a vote were counted as "undervotes." While they did not affect the outcome of the election, they did scare unopposed incumbents and encouraged potential challengers to run against them in the next election. The only problem was races in which you got to vote for more than one candidate (because more than one were elected at once). If you voted for any number less than the maximum, it also got called an undervote. Bostoner (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany (One-party-system parliamentary show elections), East Germany (One-party-system parliamentary show elections), Belarus (presidential election)

see entries of http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:East_German_elections

see entries of http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Elections_in_Germany#Elections_in_Nazi_Germany_.28formally_under_the_Weimar_Constitution.29

According to the tabulary of http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Belarusian_presidential_election,_2010#Election , it seems in 2010 there was an "against all" option (like in Russia, Ukraine, etc.), but I don't know when it was introduced, if it's still actual, and if it is only at presidential elections or more general also at e.g. parliamentary elections, etc. 62.143.229.223 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==New Proposal to Split NOTA -- into American and European -- each has a separate history. Otherwise, the NOTA article is overy long. Am editing the America side of NOTA. 99.127.230.217 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An overview section is needed for context, then links to other articles

The article is too disjointed. I think it would benefit from a broader history section that would give a general overview and then there should be subsections about the procedures in different countries and entities. Those subsections should be short and simple summaries with links to main articles with more detail. There is simply to great a diversity of election systems to lump "none of the above" into one article, and because of this diversity there is little that is shared from the various systems. For instance, how is the Polish experience related to Nevada's? This should be a general, broad, brief introduction to the idea that then points readers onto other more detailed and in-depth articles that are country- or institution-specific. For instance 're-open nominations" can get a paragraph or 3 here but more a more in-depth treatment elsewhere. Same with undervote. --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section on the NOTA party in the UK is this paragraph "USE OF NOTA

It is a button in the voting machine.It is used when the voter does not want to cast his vote to any of the political party/member. The voter can press the button NOTA.(BY HARISSH S, CPS)"

Given that voting machines with buttons are not used in UK elections this is clearly not an accurate description so please can it be removed or at least clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.22.20 (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico?

The following article suggests Mexico also allows subitting back ballots:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/11/a-dead-man-wins-election-in-cartel-country.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.129.243.31 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States

The United States section needs a bit of work. Cleaned up what I could. Several of the links were bad, or simply looked made up. Replaced with most proper references I could find.

However, I could not find an authoritative reference to the Isla Vista section. It was cited with three false links. SteveJEsposito (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about 'no award' like the Hugo Awards

Like the title says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.75.106 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on None of the above. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Above and Beyond Party

The activities and media coverage of this party are limited to the 2015 General Election. The material would be better consolidated here with other NOTA efforts rather than as a separate page relying mainly on the party's own website. I found some more coverage, but not enough to suggest ongoing independent notability: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Fences&Windows 18:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say it is more than a question of just coverage, more so of votes. I would therefore also support your proposal.- Adam37 Talk 19:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this entry is actually very out of date. All indications are that the Above & Beyond Party has disbanded. It's official website no longer exists and its facebook page has not been updated since 2015. That pages posts also reveal, in my view, that they were not a single issue party at all and were most likely using interest in None of the Above in 2015 to promote themselves and a broader political agenda. I personally think they should be removed from this page and the stand alone article either taken down or amended to reflect this. Malmanstan (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malmanstan, the party now being moribund us relevant as it will likely gain no further coverage. The coverage is about the party as a NOTA proponent, so it does belong here. Your interpretation of their Facebook posts as indicating a wider agenda is original research; we have to rely on what independent reliable sources said about the party. Fences&Windows 21:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on None of the above. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on None of the above. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]