[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14387-14389]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            "NONE OF THE ABOVE''--THE CURE FOR WHAT AILS US

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, we have gone through a terrible and 
traumatic experience in the last year called a U.S. Presidential 
election. I don't know how many countless people were utterly mortified 
by this whether or not their chosen candidate won. As it happened, the 
candidate whom I voted for lost last Tuesday, but I would be foolish if 
I ignored the fact that people all across America had a miserable, 
terrible experience with this Presidential election whether or not 
their candidate won or lost.
  You ask yourself: How could that be? Why don't we cherish the 
opportunity to choose our national leader? How is it that we have been 
sucked into this negative vortex of hatred and vilification called 
choosing a President of the United States?
  It seems utterly imponderable.
  I was watching Saturday Night Live just a couple days before the 
election, and the not-Hillary actor and the not-Donald actor could 
agree on only one thing. This is what they said: ``This whole election 
has been mean. Don't you guys feel gross all the time about this?''
  They were speaking to us, not to each other. They were speaking to 
us, the American people. They are right. It is gross. But the question 
for us is very simple: Does it really have to be that way? Or could we 
somehow transform this into what it is supposed to be, an exhilarating 
jubilee revolving around choosing a leader who will make America a 
better place?

                              {time}  1915

  But you have to understand that we are in a deep, deep hole here. 
Both major Presidential candidates entered this campaign with deeply 
negative favorability ratings, so negative they were in double digits. 
For the past 6 months, it has been a commonplace observation that both 
candidates were the most unpopular candidates in the history of 
Presidential polling--about as popular as getting a root canal on your 
birthday.
  It has been 13 long years since the Gallup Poll indicated that most 
people in this country thought that the country was heading in the 
right direction, 13 years; some Republican leadership, some Democratic 
leadership, and it all ends up the same way. Most people think the 
country is heading in the wrong direction.
  And it has been 13 years, not coincidentally, since the majority of 
Americans thought that Congress was doing a good job and approved of 
it. In fact, we reached a nadir during the government shutdown: only 16 
percent of the country thought we were heading in the right direction, 
and only 9 percent of the country thought that Congress was doing a 
good job. I pointed out at the time, standing exactly where I am 
standing right now, that, according to recent polling, Congress was 
literally less popular than dog poop.

[[Page 14388]]

  In one election after another, the voters feel completely ignored. 
Little or no effort is made to explain to them how their lives might be 
improved by any candidates running for office. It is all just an ad 
hominem personality-driven crap-storm. People feel that they are left 
to choose between the lesser of two evils. Well, take it from me, the 
choice between two evils is evil.
  One sort of commonsense observation when you are left with two major 
candidates, both of whom are overwhelmingly unpopular, is that part of 
the problem we face is that almost 80 percent of the people who are in 
America and eligible to vote had no part in choosing the candidates. So 
maybe it should come as no surprise that we end up in a situation like 
this.
  I did an interesting poll just 3 days before the election, a national 
poll, and let me show you what I found regarding how these candidates, 
the nominees of their parties, stacked up against other alternative 
opponents. Let me show you. Let's play fantasy politics for a few 
minutes.
  If the matchup had been President Obama versus Donald Trump, 
President Obama would have won by 2 percent of the vote. If the matchup 
had been Bill Clinton versus Donald Trump, Bill Clinton would have won 
with 4 percent of the vote. If the matchup had been Joe Biden, the Vice 
President, versus Donald Trump, Biden would have won by 8 percent of 
the vote. And if the matchup had been Bernie Sanders versus Donald 
Trump, as reported in the Huffington Post recently, Bernie Sanders 
would have won by 12 percent of the vote.
  Note one thing: every single alternative candidate performed better 
than the actual candidate who was the nominee of my party in these 
matchups. Also note that you can't possibly attribute that only to the 
negativity of the campaign because, frankly, there have been a few hard 
knocks over the years against Barack Obama and against Bill Clinton and 
against Joe Biden and against Bernie Sanders.
  Let's play some more fantasy politics. Let's look at alternative 
opponents against Hillary Clinton. Now, bear in mind that, according to 
the current results, although Hillary Clinton lost the Presidential 
election, she nevertheless won the popular vote by around 1 percent of 
the vote, as I speak to you tonight.
  Let's take a look at what would have happened if she had been pitted 
against alternative Republican candidates. Hillary Clinton would have 
lost to Ted Cruz in the popular vote by 4 percent. Hillary Clinton 
would have lost to George W. Bush by 8 percent. She would have lost to 
Marco Rubio by 10 percent, Mitt Romney by 12 percent, and she would 
have lost to the Speaker of this House, Paul Ryan, by 14 percent.
  Again, note one thing that draws all of these matchups together: the 
fact that the candidate who actually was the nominee of his party would 
have done worse against any alternative opponent, and the candidate who 
would have been the nominee of her party would have done worse against 
any alternative opponent that was tested here.
  Let's continue, just for those who are curious. If neither of the 
candidates had been nominated by their parties, we would have had some 
interesting matchups. I will just give you three examples here.
  I told you already that Senator Sanders would have defeated Donald 
Trump by 12 points. He would have defeated Ted Cruz by 10 points, and 
he would have defeated Marco Rubio by 4 points. Interesting matchups 
all.
  But here is the thing. The fact is that the great majority of 
Americans had no choice at all in selecting the candidates who we ended 
up voting for. We might consider it somehow a good thing that 58 
million Americans actually voted in the Presidential primaries, until 
we consider that 191 million Americans did not.
  Our grievances as a country and our divisions are massive, deep, 
intractable, and widely shared. That makes me wonder whether we can 
declare our independence from a system that constantly and perpetually 
generates unappealing and, frankly, sometimes appalling alternatives. 
We can't go on like this. You know what I am talking about. As Leonard 
Cohen said, we all feel like our dog just died.
  We have to change the way that we do politics in America. Now, I am 
not suggesting that we choose our leaders like the Athenians did. They 
chose their leaders by lottery. I am not suggesting that we adopt 
Jonathan Swift's suggestions, but I agree with him that people are the 
riches of a nation. And I am not going to suggest sitting it out. I 
realize the temptation. I have heard so many people say over the years, 
``Don't vote; it only encourages them,'' but I think that is wrong.
  What we need is a better political system that actually manifests 
itself in a positive way and leads to a choice between candidates 
whom--imagine--we respect, we admire, we look up to as they engage in a 
battle of ideas and principles, not a battle of personalities and 
personal attacks.
  I am also not going to suggest that the answer would be a third 
party. If there is one thing that is clear, the two parties we have 
aren't functioning that well. I am not sure that a third party is 
likely to make much of a difference.
  And I don't think that we are likely to see a messiah running for the 
third party as a Presidential candidate when one we had this year 
couldn't even tell us what ``a leppo'' was. It is a good thing nobody 
asked him, ``What's a henway?'' The answer is 4 to 6 pounds.
  I think what is missing, after giving this a great deal of thought 
for the past week, is something very simple. We Americans desperately 
need and deserve the right to reject all of the candidates on the 
ballot.
  Now, I realize that that is an unusual notion, but I want you to 
think about it because I am introducing a bill called the None of the 
Above Act, whereby, if the last line on the ballot, ``none of the 
above,'' gets more votes than any candidate does, then ``none of the 
above'' actually wins. I am not talking about the Nevada version that 
we already have where the ``none of the above'' vote gets ignored. I am 
talking about ``none of the above'' winning and forcing a mulligan, a 
do-over. We make them do it over until they get it right and give us 
candidates whom we want to vote for, someone who we feel will actually 
do a good job in leadership and make the country a better place.
  Now, I want you to know that this is not unprecedented. I want you to 
know that in Communist Poland, ``none of the above,'' actually crossing 
the candidate's name off the ballot, which is a version of ``none of 
the above,'' defeated the Prime Minister in 1989. In 1991, 200 
candidates for the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies were defeated 
the same way.
  If the end of communism isn't enough to motivate you for favoring 
this reform, here are some more benefits:
  First and most importantly, we eliminate the need, the terrible need, 
to try to choose between the lesser of two evils. Remember the 
Louisiana Governor's race 25 years ago when we were forced to choose in 
Louisiana between corrupt Edwin Edwards and racist David Duke? Do you 
remember the bumper stickers that said, ``Vote for the crook. It's 
important''?
  According to a poll at that time, two-thirds of Louisiana voters 
wished they could have voted for neither, for ``none of the above.'' 
And they were right. They were right. If primary voters haven't 
identified the best candidates for the job--not just decent candidates, 
but actually the best candidates for the job--the general election 
voters should be able to wave their fingers and say: Uh-uh, no way. I 
am not going for that until you convince we, the people, that you are 
the best candidate for the job, and we are going to insist on other 
choices until we find somebody who is.
  Now, this will have a wonderful effect, a very important effect, on 
what we saw drenching us, the tsunami of negative advertising and 
negative campaigning that we saw on our TV screens and now on our 
computer screens and even our phones, this incessant drumbeat of 
negative campaigning. Why? Because both sides will

[[Page 14389]]

understand that, if you indulge yourself that way, all you are doing is 
driving down votes below ``none of the above'' and elevating ``none of 
the above'' above your candidate.
  Let's replace this terrible malignant notion of vote against him/vote 
against her with something called vote for me--and here is why. Here is 
what I will do to improve your life. What am I going to do for you, not 
what am I going to do to you.
  Now, in addition to that, I see a big boost in turnout. Last time I 
checked, which was a few days ago, the total number of votes in the 
2016 Presidential election was lower than the total number of votes in 
the 2012 Presidential election and the 2008 Presidential election and 
the 2004 Presidential election. As of a few days ago, you had to go all 
the way back to 2000 to find any national Presidential election where 
fewer people voted. And here is the really strange thing: back in 2000, 
we had 40 million fewer Americans.
  I think there are a lot of people who will show up for the specific 
purpose of voting for ``none of the above.'' I think we will see a 
massive increase in turnout if we simply convey to people the right to 
reject all the candidates, which is exactly how they feel.
  In addition to that, we will be keeping elected officials on their 
toes. Ninety percent of the elected officials in this body, the House 
of Representatives, face uncompetitive races time after time after 
time. Two-thirds of all the races down the hall in the Senate are 
uncompetitive. When Members of Congress represent deep red or deep blue 
districts, they often run unopposed and they win with 100 percent of 
the so-called vote, which isn't really a vote at all.
  So knowing that, no matter what kind of district they are--red, blue, 
purple--no matter whom they represent, they will be facing ``none of 
the above'' on that ballot will put the fear of God in them. We need to 
do that. We need to make sure that the comfortable here in this room 
and down the hall aren't too comfortable, and that even pampered 
incumbents in gerrymandered districts would have to work diligently to 
defeat the specter of ``none of the above.''

                              {time}  1930

  Also, we clearly need to defeat the dictatorship of the primary 
voters. As I indicated before, 58 million American adults voted in the 
primary elections, and 191 million did not. What was the result of 
that? People who were deeply dissatisfied with the choices that they 
had. Let me show you what I mean.
  Two days before the Presidential election, I asked in a national 
poll: How do you feel about those Presidential primary elections? How 
do you feel about them?
  Almost 52 percent said they were disappointed. Only 48 percent said 
that they were pleased. Interestingly enough, that sentiment of 
disappointment was widely shared. Among Democrats, 38 percent said that 
they were disappointed. Among Republicans, 53 percent said that they 
were disappointed. Among Independents, who, in many States, didn't even 
have the legal right to vote to choose a Presidential candidate in 
either party, 69 percent said that they were disappointed. That 
explains, in part, why we end up with a terrible Hobson's choice on the 
ballot.
  Above all, though, to be able to choose ``none of the above'' on each 
Federal ballot would show respect for the voters. In my State--the 
State of Florida--the Constitution of the State begins with these 
words: ``All political power is inherent with the people.'' If you 
really believe that in your heart--if you believe that the sovereign in 
this country, the royalty in this country are the people of the United 
States, the voters--then how can you possibly explain to them why we 
wouldn't allow them to reject all of the candidates?
  This is a practical proposal. I don't know how many people have 
noticed this, but we have more than 2 months between the election and 
when the President is sworn in under the 20th Amendment. We have almost 
2 months between the election and when the House of Representatives and 
the Senate are sworn in here in this building. It is not that difficult 
to put on a new election within 2 months. I know a lot of people who 
would favor having elections that take place in less than 2 months 
instead of approaching 2 years. In fact, it would be a blessed relief.
  Now, I understand that most people who are elected officials would 
want to fight against this for their own selfish purposes. In fact, one 
of the liberating elements is the fact that I will be leaving this body 
in a couple of months. I will be leaving because I was defeated. I will 
be leaving this body, and that gives me the freedom to be able to do 
and say what is right and not what is for my own personal benefit.
  I will point out that many, many, many people across the country 
believe that term limits are a good thing and that, somehow or another, 
term limits have been maneuvered through the Florida legislature and 
the legislatures of many other States. And, of course, term limits 
limit the terms of elected officials. In the same sense, if term limits 
can ever be enacted anywhere, that shows that it is possible to 
actually put a choice on the ballot like ``none of the above'' that 
doesn't favor any elected official anywhere--ever--but favors, instead, 
the voters and gives them a right that they should have but that they 
don't have.
  In case you are curious, you may wonder what would have happened a 
week ago last Tuesday if we had had that choice on the ballot. I know, 
and I would like to show you.
  According to my poll, 40 percent of the American people would have 
voted a week ago last Tuesday for ``none of the above.'' If you were to 
delve further into it, you would see, of those 60 percent, 28 percent 
would have voted for Hillary Clinton; 27 percent would have voted for 
Donald Trump; 4 percent would have voted for the third-party candidate 
put up by the Libertarians; and 1 percent would have voted for the 
third-party candidate put up by the Green Party.
  In short, think about what this really means. ``None of the above'' 
would have won, and we would have had the choice that human dignity 
suggests we should have--a choice involving new candidates to decide 
who rules over this Nation of 300 million-plus people and becomes the 
leader of the free world--a new set of choices, a better set of 
candidates, and a brighter future.
  If we simply can't stand the candidates we have got, we need new 
ones. Isn't that obvious? Think of it as voting with your middle 
finger. We deserve this choice. As human beings, as Americans--as 
people who deserve to have full control over our own sovereign fate--we 
deserve the choice of ``none of the above.''
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________