Your report titled "Mickey Mouse for Senate?" [Nov. 18], about non-candidate write-ins, is among the most interesting and informative of the election season.
Those votes, essentially withholding consent, were uncounted and of little note, except in The Free Lance-Star's article. That is a shame, because those votes tell a tale worth telling.
All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent. Voters can withhold consent when voting on questions by voting "no."
However, without a "None of the Above" (NOTA) ballot option, voters cannot withhold consent, even if all candidates are unacceptable.
Clearly, the consent of the governed is legitimate only if it can be withheld. Perhaps our "lesser evil" and "one choice" elections as well as increasingly negative campaigns arise in large part from denying voters the ability to withhold their consent in elections to office.
Any state can enact a voter-consent law, giving voters a binding NOTA ballot option after each candidate list, which calls a new by-election, with new candidates, to fill those offices for which NOTA won. Such a bill is being introduced in Massachusetts.
The most likely path for initial enactment of voter-consent laws is among those states with initiative petition.
While NOTA by-elections are an expense, they would not occur unless voters vote to hold them, and are likely less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.
Even candidates running unopposed would have to obtain voter consent to be elected.
NOTA-based voter-consent laws are a much-needed improvement in how we govern ourselves, returning some power to "we the people."
In the meantime, for voters who do not vote for any candidate for an office, or do not vote at all, because of dissatisfaction with all candidates, I suggest voting and writing-in "None of the Above" as a clear way to withhold consent as well as to call for enactment of a voter-consent law.
William H. White
Brewster, Mass.