Here’s one voting option you might not expect to see on the ballot here in Bermuda any time soon: None of the above. I kid you not. The right to exercise the vote this way was recently won in India — and thanks here to the keen reader who sent me a news report on the decision of their Supreme Court which ordered India’s Electoral Commission to provide a slot on ballots which would literally give voters the option to choose “none of the above”.The matter ended up in court because the move had been resisted by the Government reportedly on the grounds that a rejection option would confuse voters who were only meant to elect and not reject. Not so, according to the Judges who heard the case. “Democracy is all about choices and voters will be empowered by this right of negative voting”, the Chief Justice was reported to have said in his ruling for the bench. Apparently, activists in India believe that if a large enough number of people in a constituency cast negative votes, it will stand as a message to the political parties to put up better candidates. I suppose so.But as intriguing as the idea may sound, Bermuda’s politics bear no resemblance to those of India. Not by a long shot. You might also think a right to reject odd, a waste even, because the candidate that gets the most votes still wins (some victory huh?). Here in Bermuda we do have the right to spoil ballots to express dissatisfaction — as some voters have done in the past, although not in any great numbers as far as I can recall. We also have the right not to vote at all, a right that people do seem to exercise in numbers and this may send an even stronger message. The turnout for example in the last election in some key constituencies spoke volumes.We may also soon have the right of recall, assuming that the OBA follows through with this initiative before their term comes to an end. It was one of a number of good governance reforms in their election platform. Detail as to how it will work still needs to be spelled out, matters like: the conditions under which the right can be invoked as well as when and how many voters it will take to trigger a recall. But presumably the commitment is still there.I write “presumably” for good reason. It looked very much like the OBA might be moving in another direction when the party recently decided to protect its leader and deputy from challenge every two years and changed it to every four years; arguably at first blush a move inconsistent for a party advocating a right of recall for voters. That said, there are also a couple of provisions in the OBA constitution that allow for challenge through votes of no confidence — with no apparent time restrictions:* One, by vote of two thirds of the elected OBA MPs and subsequently endorsed by the party caucus; or,* The second when decided by the OBA caucus and endorsed by a majority of members at a general or special party conference.Nevertheless, if I didn’t know better (and in this case, I cannot say that I do), the OBA decision to insulate their two leaders from review every two years, coupled with the provision that says only MPs are eligible to run for the two slots, reminds me very much of the way things once were … but in the old UBP, proving yet again that the more things change, the more they stay the same.But no matter really: whether UBP, PLP or OBA, there is one other constitution that overrides all others, namely the Bermuda Constitution Order 1968. It sets out clearly that the Premier has to be the person who commands a majority of votes in the House of Assembly.That power is more than theoretical. We have seen how this has played out publicly where there has been division and discord among elected members: starting for example with the premiership of the late Sir John Sharpe and more recently that of Dame Jennifer Smith. As we have also seen, it comes to mark the beginning of the end. A House divided on or off the Hill cannot stand, for long.A PS to last week’s column: full marks here to Kevin Comeau for wondering whether I really intended to exempt from disclosure holdings which legislators held indirectly in Government contracts, say through a trust for example. The short answer is no. Qualifying interests whether held directly or indirectly should be disclosed. As another Famous reader (Chris) asked — rhetorically, I think: the full Monty eh? Yes.