This article notes an unfortunate ruling from a federal district judge in Nevada, striking down that state’s generation-long practice of including the choice “none of these candidates” (i.e., “none of the above”) on its ballots.
Although the suit was brought by the Republican Party, which was worried that this choice would siphon votes away from Mitt Romney, my beef isn’t partisan. It’s that the presence of this choice on the ballot helps to us gauge the lower bound of the residual vote rate, which is the most direct measure we have of voter confusion and machine malfunctions. This choice gives voters who want to abstain a way of indicating their preferences explicitly, making it clear that voters who cast a blank ballot (or who over-vote) have made an error of some sort.
The election geek in me hopes the ruling is overturned.