“A victory for ‘none of the above’ makes it impossible for politicians to ignore widespread voter dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, here in the States, we have no avenue to express our disapproval unambiguously. If you’re planning to vote but are also unhappy with both major candidates, you’re faced with a lose-lose-lose proposition: you can either vote for the ‘lesser or two evils,’ you can cast your ballot for a third party candidate, or you stay home on Election Day.
“Each gesture will be misinterpreted by the media, effectively minimizing and dismissing measures of our widespread dissatisfaction. Those voters who “hold their noses” and pick the least objectionable candidate will be counted as partisans (and probably mischaracterized as ‘swing voters’), while those who stay home will be lumped in with real non-voters (who weren’t going to vote regardless of the names on the ballot). Meanwhile, wacko third-party candidates are credited with a lot of unearned support. (Sorry, but I don’t think there’s actually a large group of people who wanted Ross Perot or Ralph Nader to be the leader of the free world.)
“As it stands, our system is great for the Democratic and Republican parties, who happily maintain the fiction that all Americans can be served by our two enthusiastically pro-business parties. But it’s a system that’s pretty crappy for everyone else.”
Read the rest at Salon. “‘None of the above’ for president! An easy fix to give American voters more power”