With the dearth of credible candidates in the Republican primaries, how about we vote for none of the Above, and use this as a Call to question the political systems legitimacy? It can also apply to the National election in November. Am I being apathetic, unpatriotic, unfulfilling of my role as a citizen of the State? Solon, the Greek leader tried to get people involved in their country. Surely, this doesn't apply today, as uninformed, uneducated and apathic citizens only care about their own selfish desires and their next video game.
I say no, a none of the above choice is not a good idea. The elections would go on too long if people didn't pick a candidate after the campaign, and millions upon millions of dollars in campaign funds would be wasted. A different voting system should may need to be made, but none of the above shouldn't be an option. BTW, I accept, if you couldn't tell.
Thanks for accepting. Why not respond to the situation of voting for a necessary evil by refusing to decide? The lesser of two evils principle (or lesser evil principle) is the principle that when faced with selecting from two unpleasant options, the one which is least harmful should be chosen. The lesser of two evils is also referred to as a "necessary evil". If None of the Above (NOA) won the election, this would encourage people to question the legitimacy of the whole political system. That wouldn't be apathetic, or unpatriotic: it would be a well-informed protest statement that shows disagreement with the current democratic system. Checking a box isn't going to have as much an impact as taking individual action anyway. Voting actually dis-empowers and disengages the people.
ON THE OTHER HAND, deciding for NOA really should be viewed as despairing, unpatriotic, and apathetic. We should be thankful for the hard-won opportunity to vote. If NOA won, then who would select the winner? In Nevada, even if the "None of These Candidates" option receives the most votes in an election, the actual candidate who receives the most votes still wins the election. An NOA vote would most likely backfire because it would double the value of some Diehard's vote, as it did when Harry Reid won the 1998 Senate election. Voting for NOA means to become a dependent, because people can't make a decision. The reason behind voter apathy is that people are too ignorant to see that policies really do impact their lives directly and indirectly. I never wanted to win this debate, I was only looking for someone who could give me ideas against the resolution. BTW, since I wanted to loose, I wonder how meaningful the number of debates someone wins is worth tracking as they do on this site anyway.