'None of the above' would be better than not voting

Russell Brand caused something of a media mini-storm recently with his typically verbose declaration of the fact that he does not vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

In fact, whatever one thinks of Brand, or Paxman, or the presentation, it cannot be argued that voter apathy is a major issue with declining voter turnout over the last 50 years

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

So what to do? I have read endless things on voter engagement. Ways to interest everyday people in politics. in my experience however everyday people don't like politics, don't trust politicians and don't want to talk about the issues. the latter partially due to that fine British mantra, - 'don't talk about politics or religion and you'll be fine'.

I read recently in the 'i' newspaper the suggestion put forward that 'None of the above' should be included on the ballot paper.

At first glance this does not seem much of a solution. Yet oddly I think it might be! Plenty of people in the U didn't vote in the last election and we have a coalition government because no one party was favoured enough to get in alone. What if one of them had though? By even a small margin? They would claim their victory (not voted  for by the majority) was a success and they were mandated to carry out their programme of government.

If you had 'noe of the above' though this would be a protest vote. Ticking it wouldn't be a spoiled paper so if it got the most voters it would be recorded. Obviously the next best placed actual person would 'win' but how chastened would they be to have been runner up to a protest vote?

Imagine a government formed in the shadow of a majority vote of 'none of the above'. Nobody could claim a mandate and politicians would know just how people really felt.

Also I believe people would feel empowered to vote if they could register a protest. Who knows, maybe, just maybe voting that way would engage them a little more and in another election they may pick someone!