> i _really_ wish that "No Vote" was a valid/acceptable option, and there were ramifications if "No Vote" got the majority support. I just don't buy into the "you are obligated to vote" choir, or see any value in the "vote against somebody else" vote.
In the presidential election, this is practically never going to happen, because the two-party system is a stable system[0], and they will maneuver to ensure that there is never a plurality of voters who dislike either (major-party) candidate enough not to vote for them[1].
That said, this does not hold for other races, such as Congressional races (or state-wide and local races). It's not uncommon to see an uncontested incumbent win with only a thin majority of the vote, due to undervoting. In that case, the electorate has signaled that they're ready for a primary or general election challenge, and this is often what happens in the next election cycle.
[0] in the literal sense
[1] At the national level, not locally. That is, regional parties have been successful to a degree (see: American Independent Party, which was essentially a Southern segregationist party).
In the presidential election, this is practically never going to happen, because the two-party system is a stable system[0], and they will maneuver to ensure that there is never a plurality of voters who dislike either (major-party) candidate enough not to vote for them[1].
That said, this does not hold for other races, such as Congressional races (or state-wide and local races). It's not uncommon to see an uncontested incumbent win with only a thin majority of the vote, due to undervoting. In that case, the electorate has signaled that they're ready for a primary or general election challenge, and this is often what happens in the next election cycle.
[0] in the literal sense
[1] At the national level, not locally. That is, regional parties have been successful to a degree (see: American Independent Party, which was essentially a Southern segregationist party).