[MrB]

“Instant runoff” would be better,
but, as it breaks the two party monopoly,
it’ll never be allowed.

[moovova]

I’d settle for an honest voting system.

[BitWielder1]

I think if "None Of The Above" gets the most votes, the post should be left vacant until the next election.

[GeronL]

crazy

how about we ban non-citizen voting, dead voting, multiple voting and stuff

[sr4402]

You will Vote for Kay Hagan, else you will answer to ME!

[mosesdapoet]

Let’s not get carried away with “None of the above” satire in Forbes by George Leaf.

[grumpygresh]

There is no way that the Republicrats would let that happen because the GOP and Dem candidates could easily receive a very low net positive total or even a negative total which would allow a third party candidate to win.
It is an amusing proposition though.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article reaganaut1. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"That is largely how our electoral system works ..."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regarding how the electoral system is supposed to work, please don’t overlook the following. The Founding States had decided that the Senate was to be the voice of the state legislatures in Congress. In other words, only state lawmakers could vote for a federal senator as evidenced by the Constitution’s Clause 1 of Section 3 of Article I.

But as a consequence of inexcusably widespread ignorance of the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers by 1913, state lawmakers ratified the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A) which gave general voters the power to vote for federal senators, effectively repealing Clause 1 of Section 3 referenced above.

Sarcastically speaking, a possible reason for the ratification of 17A is this. Given that one of the very few powers that the states had delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, to regulate an aspect of intrastate commerce was the power to decide policy for the US Mail Service, such power evidenced by the Constitution’s Clause 7 of Section 8 of Article I, one is inclined to ask the following question about 17A. Was the price for a postage stamp so high in the early 1900s that voters felt that they needed to be able to vote for their state’s federal senators in order to keep the price of postage stamps reasonably low?

[morphing libertarian]

I support none of the above if it would leave the seat vacant.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Conservatives and libertarians, confronted with a rigged election system and candidates in both parties who are pre-selected by powerful interests to maintain the status quo, are reacting in the only rational way they can.

They are simply refusing to participate.

They are also according neither legitimacy nor respect to the pre-selected mannequins who "win" elections. This would be a very dangerous thing for the American Republic - if we still had one.

[JimRed]

None of the above...

[Theophilus]

This is an old idea. The Greeks did it and the winner of the black vote had to drink the hemlock. How enticing! Such a system could make me vote for a Demonrat!.

[familyop]

The campaign bandwagons are getting too pushy and almost threatening. The tele-campaign calls are getting old quick. The few influential constituents behind the politicians of both parties are only striving to get most of the debt/revenues and outlaw all new business competition.

“None of the above” or no word at all is good enough. Eventually, the political regulator folks will wonder why they’re the only ones making noise, participating in elections and receiving nothing more (economic collapse).

[Impy]

Sounds stupid.