New Hampshire House bill would let you vote for 'none of the above'

[frazzled]

1. Holding elections is expensive

In the case where "none of the above wins"—which could be quite often in a state like New Hampshire, I should think—it could get very expensive to hold new elections. Would the new elections require new filings for candidates, new primaries? Months of campaigning again? In the meantime, do the people have any representation? I see too many problems with this, as it stands.

I used to do a lot of canvassing in New Hampshire ... door to door, one on ones with people. I can't tell you how many ridiculous positions I found myself in. Typical scenario:

Voter: I'm not going to vote; no politician will solve the problems I'm interested in.
Me: May I ask what your most important issue is?
Voter: My wife left me and she doesn't let me see our kid often enough. (Alternate answer: My kid listens to rap music and is doing terribly in school)

These are real answers I encountered, not made up, and they were by no means the rare oddity. I mean, this is how some people think about politics (or don't think). I'd rather they stayed home and didn't vote rather than going to vote and choosing "none of the above," forcing the state to spend money and rational voters to spend time on re-running an election to which those same voters will not want to vote for anyone again.

Note: I tried to be very kind, patient, and respectful with these people, and often tried to get them to see how their involvement in the political system (or my candidate) might actually help their situation. I tried to bring them out of the personal and to see how societal issues were affecting schools/courts/education, etc. It was a pretty thankless task, however.