Daniel Pink explores a reader's idea to add a "Nobody" ballot option to House elections, with the seat staying empty if it wins. The proposal signals public discontent with representative democracy, though vacant seats could pile up and it's unclear who could beat "Nobody."
Hey, this is Daniel Pink. I write the Why Not column for The Washington Post, where we propose bold, unconventional ideas for remaking our country, our organizations, and our lives. We've gotten thousands of ideas from readers all over America. Here's one from a reader in Fort Wayne, Indiana, who says, why not have elections for the US House include the option of Nobody on the ballot? That is a ballot line, capital N, Nobody. If Nobody wins, the seat remains vacant. Well, first of all, I think this is a really interesting way to express discontent with the current state of our representative democracy, and I really believe that discontent is deep. Whether this is a solution, I don't know. It seems like we'd have a lot of vacant seats, and I'd be curious about who would occupy the seats who'd be powerful enough and popular enough to beat Nobody. Nonetheless, I'm curious what you think. So, tell us below, should Nobody be on the ballot?
