'None of the above' option needed here

On Election Day, 16,174 Nevadans voted for no one. Yes, they voted, they were just given the opportunity to vote for “none of these candidates,” and they did. These voters represented just 2.25 percent of the entire electorate, and even if all of them had voted for Sharron Angle, Harry Reid still would have won.

But that does not make them insignificant. For better or worse, elected officials are not beholden to all citizens in their state or district, they are only beholden to the less than 50 percent who get out and vote. It is this small number of people that will determine if politicians keep or lose their jobs.

One of the most common complaints from nonvoters is that they don't like any of the candidates so it doesn't matter who wins. Like Nevada, Illinois could allow a none-of-the-above option. Then, when Illinoisans don't like either candidate, as most polls showed was true for both top-ticket races this year, they can still be voters; their voice can still matter.

Maybe 2 percent doesn't sound like a lot of voters, but what if 10 percent or 20 percent of voters showed up to the polls and said, “Give us someone better.” Campaigns would become more positive as candidates would now not only have to give you reasons to dislike the other candidate, they would have to give you reasons to like themselves.

And, what better way to express your dislike of politics than by using the very mechanism on which our system of politics is based? Currently, candidates can ignore people disgruntled by the system because they are unlikely to vote anyway. Yet, candidates would not be able to ignore an entire demographic that proves it is willing to vote, but wants something better.

Bret Bender

Downers Grove