If adopted it would enable disenchanted voters to register their views instead of staying at home in protest.

But it could pose problems for smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who have traditionally been thought to benefit from protest votes.

Just 59.6% of the electorate bothered to vote at last year's general election, compared to 71.4% in 1997, which was itself a post-war low.

The Electoral Commission is reviewing several options to encourage a higher turnout and will make final recommendations to the government early next year.

Would allowing a "none of the above" box increase voter participation? Or is it merely a gimmick? What effect would it have on smaller parties? Give us your view using the form below.

This Talking Point was suggested by Simon Richardson, UK:

"At last the Electoral Commission is contemplating a "no confidence" box. This will show the difference between apathy and despair among voters which is a major step forward".

If you have any suggestions for Talking Points,

An excellent idea for most of the positive reasons given by others. In a free society I have the right to vote for whom I wish - I also have the right not to vote. I frequently vote for an acceptable minority party when there are no real alternatives (to help them keep their deposit etc) as spoilt papers are not generally reported. A positive vote of disaffection or objection could indicate to politicians and the general public, the proportion of voters who care enough to vote for "none of the above" separating them/us from the apathetic masses.
Glyn, Ipswich, UK

If you don't vote, your opinion is of no importance whatsoever. Why should anyone listen to you if you didn't vote for them or against them? A 'none of the above' vote is just the same; an excuse for apathy. The lazy no-voters get the government they deserve, and have no right to complain about it.
Brian, UK

Good idea. This should be coupled with compulsory voting. Then and only then will we be able to get a clear picture as to what proportion of those eligible to vote, don't trust or respect politicians. This may prompt a different approach to politics at long last. However, the reason why we do not have this option on the ballot paper and the reason why voting is still optional is because that suits the parties. The turn out at the last election was pathetic, and that's just how the politicians like it. The fewer people taking an interest in the world around them, the more politicians can pull the wool over their eyes and get away with it.
Andy, UK

The politicians of this world are under no illusions about what people think of them

Vivek, India

Indeed, a very remarkably neat idea. What remains to be seen though is whether or not it will actually go through. I am pretty sure the politicians of this world are under no illusions about what people think of them. If such a thing does happen, people will surely want to have their say.
Vivek, India

'None of the above' - superficially appealing but ultimately I fear just a gimmick and a possible source of disaffected malice. If you've gone through the processes sufficiently to end up in the voting booth, you have no excuse for wanting 'none of the above' since you will have discovered enough about the candidates to make some kind of choice even if only for the Monster Loony Raving Party!
Rashid Karapiet, UK

Politicians are rubbishing this idea because it shows just how dissatisfied people are. They seem to be assuming that, because they think they're doing a good job, everybody agrees with them. Isn't it odd that the Government is one of the few public services which hasn't had league tables foisted upon it? It would be interesting to compare the promises MPs made in order to get elected with what they've actually done since they came to power.
Pete Hazell, UK

I think the choice of recording a positive abstention is a great idea

Nick, Scotland

Isn't it interesting how the political establishment is trying to rubbish this idea? They've tried out gimmicks like putting voting booths in supermarkets and text voting, but it does not appear to have crossed their minds that millions of us don't agree with any of them. I think the choice of recording a positive abstention is a great idea, especially as I am sick hearing other people say what my abstention stands for.
Nick, Scotland

I see so many disenfranchised with politics. Why just sit there and complain by ruining your right to free choice, when you could start your own party and get your opinions across to people, as I have decided to do.
Rahul, UK

The ballot isn't a multiple-choice quiz. The box should read "no confidence".
Robert Peel, UK

I bet someone will change their name by deed poll to "none of the above" and will then romp home in an election!
Roger C, UK

I do not vote because all politicians are basically dishonest

Paolo, UK

I am a non-voter. Adding a "none of the above" box will still not make me go out and tick that box. I do not vote because all politicians are basically dishonest and ALWAYS renege on their election promises.
Paolo, UK

I think it's an excellent idea - with one proviso. If "none of the above" gets more votes than any of the candidates, nobody is elected. If that doesn't concentrate politicians' minds, nothing will!
Jo Ward, England

Voting should not be optional, it is an obligation upon us for having democracy and there will be little benefit to having 'none of the above' until it becomes compulsory to vote.
Lee Meyrick, UK

A "none of the above" option is the best idea regarding politics I've yet heard! I wish such a choice were on every ballot here in the States. Since politicians only represent those who give them the most money, it's long past time to let voters officially point out the hypocrisy of the system.
Joseph A. Haran Jr, USA

Every vote counts

Anthony, USA/UK

There is one electoral reform worth having - proportional representation. There is plenty of evidence that this boosts turnout in other countries. Every vote counts, no matter what constituency, and there are more parties to choose from.
Anthony, USA/UK

Maybe an overhaul of the UK parliamentary system would be a better idea by getting rid of the "first past the post system". Too many people are disenfranchised at the ballot box. Either they support a minority party that could never muster enough votes locally to get an MP, or they vote for Labour in a Tory strong-hold (or vice-versa). Many of those people don't bother to vote since their vote will not count for anything.
Matt, UK/US

Sounds like a great idea - it'll save me the bother of having to write it on the ballot paper like I did at the last General Election. I always vote when given the opportunity, but have had to resort to spoiling the ballot paper rather than vote for people who inspire no respect or admiration.
Brian Greenway, UK

All it will do is make the British parliament very shaky and unstable

James Blake, UK

Why do people feel it will help them? All it will do is make the British parliament very shaky and unstable, and if so many people vote none of the above, what could happen? Exactly what happened in 2001 in Oldham - it allows fascists and extremists on the fringes into mainstream politics.
James Blake, UK

Rather than have 'none of the above', why not label this option 'just leave it to Brussels'? That's where all significant political decisions are taken now it seems, so why not be 'positive' about this?
Calum Steen, UK

Someone once said, "Don't vote for politicians, it only encourages them". Personally, I'd rather have PR at local and UK elections
Craig Cockburn, Scotland

I've been writing it on my ballot papers for years. Politicians otherwise call us "apathetic" rather than admit that we simply don't want them as representatives. Hopefully they'll go further, and once none of the above gets a majority, we get shot of politicians of all stripes and run our own lives for a change. Ever notice how nothing goes terribly wrong when Parliament isn't sitting? It's cheaper. It's better. It's no government at all!
Mike Holmes, Scotland

John Ellis - it's exactly because we live in a democracy that we are not forced to vote. If I go to a restaurant and fancy nothing on the menu - why should I have to eat?
Stephen Lynch, Wales, GB

Democracy is a privilege

John Ellis, England

I think it's a very good idea. It should be brought in along with compulsory voting, so those who complain can simply tick the 'none of the above' box. Democracy is a privilege and people who refuse to vote are insulting those around the world who live in oppressed societies.
John Ellis, England

What happens if "none of the above" gets elected?
Vernon Bigg, UK

I have been saying this for over 25 years - it's about time we had this choice. I have always felt disenfranchised as I have rarely had an opportunity to express my true choice at the polls. It's about time I had the same rights as other voters!
JJ, UK

The party system is no longer representing even a small majority of the population

George Garratt, UK

The "no confidence" vote is only useful if something gets done about it. What is needed is a frank and open discussion about HOW we wish to be "governed". It's becoming more and more obvious that the party system is no longer representing even a small majority of the population. More like a large minority.
George Garratt, UK

On a constituency level, this could work very well. If there is nobody who can adequately serve the constituency in Parliament, then, although a vote for "none of the above" would not help, "Re-Open Nominations" (or RON) is an option often seen in elections within organisations, and one which should possibly be introduced.
Andrew K, UK

This is a fantastic idea. Until now, the only way to register a vote for "none of the above" was to destroy your ballot paper. When only 60% of the electorate vote, and the winning party get roughly 50% of the vote, that means they have the backing of only 30% of the electorate. Attention is rarely drawn to this, and a large "none of the above" vote would stop this "landslide victory" nonsense.
Nick Grant, UK

This would give these people a proper say

Pete B, Thatcham, UK

About time! Perhaps a few politicians would be shaken out of their complacency if a huge number voted this way. I always tell people to go and use their vote and spoil the ballot paper if they don't want any of the candidates. This would give these people a proper say, especially if an election had to be re-run if "none of the above" was the overwhelming majority.
Pete B, Thatcham, UK

Chris, USA has created a stir. To Jack I would say that I effectively have no choice as the Tory always wins where I live. Bring in PR, if none of the above wins we can do without Parliament until sufficient support for a Government is found. That should really make politicians think twice about making false promises?
Jenni, Bristol, England

Chris, USA, is quite right. And even if the voter bothers to put a cross on the paper, it means he/she is simply avoiding a decision. Effective voting systems in all fields depend on a limited choice.
Jack, UK

In reply to Chris, USA. I would welcome the opportunity to be able to "traipse down to the ballet box to cast a non vote". It means I can actively state that I believe none of the parties to be fit for government, instead of voting for independents who I know nothing about or being classified as part of the "can't be bothered to vote" brigade.
Steve, UK

What a silly idea! If people would rather not choose a candidate, why would they traipse down to the ballot box to cast a non-vote? Sounds like the electioneering equivalent of a loss leader, a gimmick to get customers into the store.
Chris, USA

Providing a "none of the above" box was added, voting should be made compulsory.
Stephen, Wales