[AuH2ORepublican]

"I heard that they have this option on the ballot in Nevada. I was just curious as to how successful it has been in that state."

---

It is pointless. Even if NOTA gets a plurality or even a majority of votes in Nevada, the "winner" is the candidate who received more votes than any other candidate, and NOTA is *not* a candidate.

How could you have an election and have no winner? What are you going to do, force another election? And what happens when the previous officeholder's term expires and no one has been elected to replace him? It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

I kind of figured that would be the destination for most of these elections.

Just look at the first few democratic elections that occurred in Serbia in the aftermath of Milosovic's electoral defeat in 1999.

There was an unrealistic threshold set for voter participation-especially in a country which was already politically disaffected due to the actions of NATO, the EU, and its own corrupt, party apparatchiks-and then the voters were forced to rerun the election several times, with the exact result that the brain trust who had devised these ridiculous guidelines did not want!

To me, the 'NOTA' option is just another excuse for people to piss and moan about politics without doing anything substantive to ameliorate the problems that they are so quick to point out to their fellow citizens.