I believe Australia still has as an option on its ballots a "no confidence" vote. And I believe that were "no confidence" to win they have to have another election. But maybe I'm in error there. I heard it once but have not researched since I do not live in Australia. I like the idea of it for most countries except America. In America, people value their voting rights less than in most free countries; too many take the fact of living in a Democratic Republic for granted and so we have a serious problem of way too many low-information voters, voting for whomever they'd prefer to share a beer with. If you think both candidates suck and you weren't involved in the primary process or didn't take pains to be informed and active, you get the candidates you deserve. In every single election so many people call the candidates "the lesser of two evils" and it is the laziest thing in the world to say or believe. You chose the candidates or you abdicated your right and responsibility to have candidates you'd have liked more. We have a very clear choice in this election and if you can't tell the (extremely radical) difference between the values of these two candidates and the policies they'd put in place, you really shouldn't vote.
I find this an interesting point of view from you considering that you have criticized Obama probably harsher than I have the last four years. I see nothing wrong with looking at the election as the lesser of two evils. You can be completely informed about the candidates yet still be dissatisfied with your choices.
