What do you think about this option?
 

So I was watching Brewster's Million (one of the best film imho) and wonder why not have a third option in the Presidential election. None of the above. Should the "None of the above" vote gets the majority, both candidates should withdraw from the election and a new batch of candidates come forward.

:D

Hmmm...not sure how I feel about that. Who decides who the next candidates are? Is there another primary?

It's an interesting idea. You might actually get more people out to vote if they can choose "none of the above".
On the other hand, this is a much longer process and you might end up with less people voting becuase they don't have the patience for it.

Isn't that essentially a no-confidence motion?

-Rudey

More or less, though no-confidence in Parlimentarian democracy implies no confidence on a sitting head of government. In this case, it is a no-confidence on either candidates. Of course, the problem arise, who will replace the candidates and who get to decide who to replace.

We'd also have a nearly perpetual campaign season -- imagine if Clinton had been able to campaign for a no-confidence vote. He would have. The party would have also just kept putting up patsies to knock down in favor of the no-confidence vote. It would potentially allow a President to hold the reigns of power perpetually.

It sounds nice, but I'd be worried about unintended consequences here.

It sounds like a political mess to me. Yes, a far worse mess than some may think we have now.