In Quebec recently, there was a provincial election and the three candidates split almost exactly one third of the votes each. When I asked a friend his take on it, he replied that it meant that the voters were really saying none of the above. In Quebec, the government will have to hold a new election if the other two parties fail to support them on certain key issues like budget votes, so my best guess is that there will be another election within a year or two. In France they elected socialists in all three houses with a weak majority in the presidency but are now mighty unhappy in the opinion polls. In Greece it seems they just keep throwing the dice until a group forms a government for as long as it lasts. I am sure there are many more examples in the world today. There is a flaw in democracy that if 51% of a bitterly contested election wins, then 49% lose. There is no appeal in some countries. At a time when concensus is needed, elections can breed disharmony. For over three decades I have suggested that governments should put a category for none-of-the-above-candidates on the ballot to keep the politicians more honest and hopefully more humble. Usually I just get a chuckle and agreement no matter what side of the political spectrum I am talking to. I looked today at the US race polls and see parallels. Does the extremely close poll results mean that the voters are really saying none of the above? What happens then?