This site KOLOTV.com says "There’s something on your Nevada ballot this year that no other voters in the nation see. … “None of these Candidates.”
This has been my most frequently selected option on the ballot since at least 1998 or so.
Objective question. Is Nevada indeed the only state to have this option?
I cannot answer the OP, but I have long advocated not only having that option, but stating in the law that the people who poll lower than that option are permanently barred from ever running for that office again.
Now imagine that system in a Presidential election. 
We might have to run secondary elections with new candidates in December!
But if that option “wins,” doesn’t the leader among actual candidates still take it?
As I understand it, the office goes unfilled and no funding for the office is available.
In almost every election in the US, you are entitled to “write in” a candidate, including yourself. I suppose that one could write in a fictional character or someone they know is ineligible to hold the office (e.g. writing in “Queen Elizabeth II of the UK” on a ballot for State Governor or writing in “Bruce Wayne aka Batman” for Congress) I would imagine that if Batman “won” the election, the office would either go unfilled, go to the candidate with the next highest votes (possibly dependent on whether they have a plurality or majority disregarding the Batman votes, or the Governor or the legislature would appoint someone.
Nope, spark240 had it right, so a quick n’ dirty Wikipedia visit leads me to believe. Here you go
Yes, Nevada is the only state to offer that option, and no, selecting the option has no practical effect.
I’d imagine that if Batman won the election, it would fire up a big controversy, and either the legislature would have to vote on what to do or the courts would have to decide.
Either that, or they’d just fire up the Bat-Signal, and if he didn’t show up by inauguration day, they’d follow the usual procedure for an elected official who isn’t able or willing to server.
I believe some jurisdictions passed laws against knowingly voting for someone who’s ineligible after the Mickey Mouse write-ins in 1968. But I don’t think any of those laws have ever been enforced, and who knows if they’re constitutional, so that would probably just make things more confusing and controversial, not less.
Thanks, that was the question.
It’s kind of a shame that the “None of these candidates” option has zero effect- I mean, if that’s the majority result then surely that means it’s time for by-elections with entirely new candidates?
Otherwise, what’s the point of going to vote for “None” if it doesn’t count? From a practical viewpoint you might as well stay home.*
*Obviously “Not voting at all” isn’t a particularly desireable course of action, but even so…