Re: You get what you deserve whenever choices are limited and rigged for status quo continuity?
> all future elections should have a candidate standing as "None of the Above",
Indeed. The current "protest" method of simply not voting is not enough, as that may be interpreted in a number of ambiguous ways, and often benefits the group(s) with the most votes.
For me, the minimum standard for a viable and truly representative vote is the Usenet system. To summarise (and extrapolate where necessary):
* Anybody can stand as a candidate.
* Anybody can propose a candidate.
* Anybody who is interested can vote.
* Anybody who is not interested can not vote (Australia, I'm looking at you).
* A vote may be cast FOR a candidate.
* A vote may be cast AGAINST a candidate.
* Where applicable, maintaining the status quo is an explicit option which can be voted FOR or AGAINST.
* Votes must be for a single proposal (single candidate / group of candidates, so as many votes as there are parties in the election may be cast--for or against, obviously).
* Votes are not transferable. So if I voted FOR John, he cannot form a coalition with Peter to bring him into power. Peter has to have made it on his own right.
* Likewise, if John has promised X, that's a contract. He must attempt his best to do X and he must not do Y unless that was also promised, or a new vote is cast.
Anyway, that's my minimum standard. Anything else is not participatory or representative enough.