In article , "Leon" wrote:

Elected officials should not win because they simply got a majority of the
vote, they shoud get a majority of the registered voters vote. For example
if there are 10 registered voters, only 3 show up to vote, and all 3 vote
for candidate "A", that is not good enough. Candidate "A" must get 6 or
more votes to win.

OK, but suppose Candidate A and his opponent B are both chumps, each with
lukewarm support from only one of the ten voters -- but A is *opposed* by all
of the other eight. If the one voter that supports B, and five of the eight
that oppose A, show up and vote for B, he's in, even though he's a chump.

That's actually not as far-fetched as it seems. I think we saw something
similar in the 2008 primaries: Hillary Clinton has very high disapproval
ratings, even among Democrats, and I suspect that a substantial number of the
votes that Obama received were votes against her, not for him. Meanwhile, on
the Republican side, several of the candidates appeared to be nutjobs;
probably many of the votes McCain received were votes against them, not for
him.

Not voting is a vote that the candidates are not wanted and should be cast
aside.

Better yet, require the choice "None Of The Above" to appear on every ballot.
If NOTA "wins", have another election in which the losing candidates are not
allowed to participate. Repeat until someone wins. Or leave the office vacant.