I absolutely agree. Ranked voting (it has a better name that i can't remember right now) is absolutely the way to go.
I'm not sure how I feel about the "Nobody"/"Zero" votes though. I can see where you are coming from, and they could have some use, but I think that would be the part that would throw some people over the edge of being confused by the system.
A simple "rank your candidates from best to worst, you can stop whenever you want" system is simple enough that everyone can get it, and solves a ton of problems with the current single-vote system we have now. Plus by putting nobody on the ballot (but still submitting it) you show "nobody" implicitly. (and you could even make it an explicit checkbox if you want)
I think what you're thinking of is called either Ranked Choice or Instant Runoff Voting. We're actually voting on a citizens' referendum in Maine (U.S.A.) to institute it here - part of the interest in it is due tot he fact that we've elected our Governor with less than 50% of the vote many times over the past 20 years or so, and our current governor (elected w/ 38% and 48% of the vote in respective terms) has been an embarrassment lately. We're going to make it applicable to state and federal offices (Reps and Senators) too.
We tend to have a lot of Independents and Greens run here (one of our current Senators is an Independent) and be successful. I'm really interested to see how it turns out.
I'm not sure how I feel about the "Nobody"/"Zero" votes though. I can see where you are coming from, and they could have some use, but I think that would be the part that would throw some people over the edge of being confused by the system.
A simple "rank your candidates from best to worst, you can stop whenever you want" system is simple enough that everyone can get it, and solves a ton of problems with the current single-vote system we have now. Plus by putting nobody on the ballot (but still submitting it) you show "nobody" implicitly. (and you could even make it an explicit checkbox if you want)