None of these candidates: Silly lawsuit seeks to remove option

And now comes the federal lawsuit Townley, et al. v. State of Nevada, et al., seeking to prevent people from going to the polls in November and casting a vote in the presidential race for "None of These Candidates," an option which Nevada has long proudly preserved.

"Plaintiff [Wesley] Townley reasonably believes that several properly registered and duly qualified electors who will participate in the Nov. 6, 2012 general election will select 'none of these candidates' when voting in the presidential election and the U.S. Senate race," the lawsuit asserts.

"Plaintiff Townley reasonably believes that, if 'none of these candidates' did not appear as a choice on the ballot in the races for president of the United States and U.S. Senate, a substantial number of people ... who otherwise would have selected 'none of these candidates' would instead cast their votes for one of the candidates running for those offices, including Governor [Mitt] Romney and Senator [Dean] Heller."

And what's wrong with that?

By casting a vote which, in essence "won't count," voters who choose "None of These Candidates" will be rendered "disenfranchised," plaintiffs argue.

By exercising their franchise in a manner of their own choosing, they'll be ... "disenfranchised"? Whereas everything will be better if these voters can somehow be compelled to vote for a candidate they oppose?

The whole premise is absurd. Voters are free to stay home, right? They're free to cast a ballot in every other race and leave that race blank on their screen, right? Deprived of the "None of These Candidates" option, they're free to vote for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson of New Mexico or a Green Party candidate or anyone else who manages to qualify for the ballot, right?

What's next? Making it a crime not to vote?

"Ridiculous" is not a strong enough word for this attempt at polling-booth manipulation.