The "none of the above" proposal is acknowledgement of the superiority of the parliamentary system, at least in regards to "head of state" issues.

In our system we have no built-in "caretaker" executive system. That's a system with problems wonderfully satirized in the Brit sitcom, "Yes Prime Minister". You think you hate the USA's federal gov's unresponsiveness now, imagine a bureaucracy with real power and civil service protection.

I think a majority "no confidence" vote would be useful. If a fatcat got so bad that 2/3 of the people want him out, then out he goes. Like Governor Davis--mercifully given electoral capital punishment. But that's a bit late, the damage has already been done.

Better would be some sort of election reform that would be more responsive to the many diverse views found in this country at all levels but dumbed-down by the dominant parties. The voting methodologies that Z has described in previous threads would be some interesting possibilities.

B

The Nation magazine which recently took a certain individual to task for his having the audacity to run for president, now has seen the light, and is forced to concede what I think is his central point in running--that we have a broken electoral system.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0303-13.htm

She's calling on Dems to change the electoral system, but the need for reforms shouldn't simply be viewed as an ideological endrun around the process to promote a singular agenda. Libertarians, Greens, Republicans, independents, etc. should all see value and enlightened self-interest in pursuing a more open and fair process.