Let Nobody Serve

Since 1896, the candidate with the most votes has gotten an average of 22 percent of eligible voters; all of remaining candidates combined have averaged 20 percent of eligible voters. None of the Above has dominated the past century with a 58 percent average.

A mandate is the implicit support of the people for government policies. When a candidate sweeps into office on a large majority, other elected federal officials, fearing for their own future campaigns, go along with the new proposals. When a candidate earns a meager victory, they are less prone to hop on. Indeed in eight of the last thirty elections, the winning candidate didn't even get a majority among those who chose to vote: his resulting mandates were much weaker.

But what about nobody? Nobody has been consistently winning in a landslide. Nobody's supporters are loyal and reliable: once you vote for nobody, you almost always vote for nobody. Government media would have you believe that nobody's supporters are lazy, shiftless, racist, uneducated, ignorant, bad citizens. They are disparaging the majority of adult Americans, the silent majority that places nobody first, the silent majority that knows, despite all the rhetoric, that nobody listens, nobody will protect us, nobody really cares.

What if nobody's mandate won? What if no new laws had been passed for the past four, eight, sixteen years -- would we be worse off, or much much better?