<html> the answer for people who refuse to vote?   the option -- "none of the above" -- has been on ballots in australia for years.    anyone know why it's not on the US ballots? R from the guardian's letters to the editor page: Restoring the voting habit Saturday August 17, 2002 The Guardian You report that the electoral commission is considering allowing voters to vote for "None of the above" in general elections (Sceptical voters may be allowed to vote for no one, August 13). This would enable voters' disenchantment with the candidates to be distinguished from plain old apathy. It would be useful, although I would hardly expect the main political parties to welcome it. In the last general election my brother was involved in the electoral campaign of "Nun of the above". They fielded an independent candidate in Hampstead and Highgate, standing against (among others) Glenda Jackson, on precisely this platform. Their candidate changed his name to "Sister Xnunoftheabove" for this worthy purpose, so that those words were on the ballot paper and voters could vote for "Nunoftheabove". Their website, which featured photographs of obviously respectable men dressed in nuns' habits, recorded over 10,000 hits. Despite their popularity, they did not win, although they beat every other independent candidate in the constituency. They will undoubtedly regard this electoral commission as something of a success and perhaps the road to future triumph. Toby Gee London · Why don't we have the option of voting against a candidate/party as an alternative to voting for one? It would make tactical voting much easier. Martin Spinnler Helensburgh, Dunbartons Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 </html>