What do you think about this option?

[moe.ron]

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.

[TheEpitome1920]

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

[Lady Pi Phi]

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.

[Rudey]

Isn't that essentially a no-confidence motion?

-Rudey

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by Rudey
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.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by moe.ron
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.

[bethany1982]

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