Even with primary elections, which don't operate under standard rules, a "none of the above" could serve as a strong brake on insane primary decisions as has happened in the past several "elections". In the most resent one, if we had such a system in place, and if voter turnout was high enough, then the number of blanks cast on the high-profile slots would entirely likely have resulted in a re-vote with new candidates. In such a system, the "protest vote" would be to show up at the polling place -- as one is supposed to -- and blank the boxes for the office in contest. This is the "none acceptable" vote -- i.e. I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for any of these candidates.dillon wrote:I think a “none of the above” ballot option would make sense...if we didn’t have Primary elections.
The current machinery depends heavily on the primary system. Perhaps eliminating that would be a step in the right direction. Or at least make the decision-making process in the primary system(s) transparent enough so the electorate actually gets a chance to see how the thing is run. (This alone might make third parties more viable when folks see precisely how corrupt the inner party working are.) In any event, there needs to be a "no acceptable candidate" option on the ballot that has actual teeth to it. This could be a separate box to tick, or, as I propose, no ticks anywhere means "no acceptable candidate".
As far as Citizens United (what a glorious bit of spin that is!) goes, that's about the worst thing that's come down the 'pike in decades. However, it was inevitable given the current operation of the system. To crib somebody else's line, "I'll believe corporations are individuals when Texas executes one." (And I actually use that term for certain corporations whose behaviour is so egregious that it's needed, e.g. Wells Fargo, Enron, AIG, &c.) That particular pox on the political landscape needs to be expunged, but perhaps I give too little credence to the average voter who may have the wherewithal and a sensitive BS detector to simply blank the candidates that reek of too much money. Of course that's not going to happen in the current system.