A plea for a disillusionment vote

Politics, in america at least, generally involves pandering to the masses. The winner is not the person with the best ideas, it's the person that resonated most strongly with the average person. This sucks, because the average person tends to be sort of dumb. I mean let's be honest, the "average" person also made Nickelback rich and famous, so their judgement is suspect at best. In any case, this pandering results in a dumbing down of politics, to the point where people smart enough to see how awful both candidates are tend to have no recourse other than not participating in the system. In music terms, it's like this: we can either buy a Creed album, or a Nickelback album, or just give up on listening to music altogether. Given that choice, most of us would just choose not listening to music, because seriously, Nickelback?

The difference, of course, is that in music not participating is a viable option. You can vote with your money -- and if the music out there sucks, you can choose not to buy it. And the record companies /will/ notice, eventually, because they will be poor. In politics, it really doesn't matter whether the vote tally was 51,000 to 41,000, or 51 to 41. Volume is irrelevant. Either way it's a win. So you can't make a meaningful stand by not participating.

Of course, a lot of uninformed clueless people will generally argue that everyone should vote because if you don't you're a terrible person and P'Diddy is going to come to your house and shoot you up, or something like that (Vote or Die, motherfuckers!) What's worse is that they'll make the argument that "if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to complain." Well fuck you, I do have the right to complain. That's like saying "you don't have the right to be annoyed with my speakers blasting Nickelback 24/7 because you didn't buy the Creed album!"

So that all sounds like a lot of sour grapes, but it's not. Why? Because the reason I am presenting the problem is because I have a solution.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we need a "disillusionment" vote. Essentially, it would be a way of saying "I don't take either of these candidates seriously". It would tally just like any normal vote. Now here's where it gets interesting: What happens if the disillusioned win?

I can see it playing out in various ways. Here's a few ideas:

A) Both candidates are disqualified and a revote is taken with new candidates (chosen by their respective parties). This will repeat until someone wins over the disillusioned voters. Like, let's say the next presidential election ends up being Sara Palin versus Hilary Clinton. YIKES!!! Disillusionment vote saves all of us from that doomsday scenario.

B) The top two vote-getting parties are disqualified, and a revote is taken with only the 3rd parties being considered. This is more extreme, and probably a harder sell, but it could be an interesting alternative. The reason why I like this is because, on their own, the 3rd parties are not popular enough to win a seat in practically anything. But if they were all allowed to band together under one flag as the disillusionment vote, without compromising their platforms, that could be a viable way for them to get a foothold. Judging from people I talk to, I think a lot of people would be willing to vote 3rd party if they didn't think it was a wasted vote. This gives them a chance to do just that.

How say you reddit?