In the last presidential election there were close to thirty different parties running canidates in the different states. Vote for one of them. That is your "none of the above choice".
You have an interesting notion of what "none of the above" means. To me it means voting against all of the candidates, not for one of them.
I used to do what you suggest, voting straight-ticket Libertarian in every election except in 2004 (where I held my nose and voted for Kerry because I felt getting Bush and his PNAC handlers out was more important than my principles and self-respect.) But I have no guarantee that my vote was counted in 2004, because it was made on a touch-screen machine that did not produce a paper record of my votes. (Even if it had produced such a record, there's still a history of election fraud as old as American history itself.)
I've had enough of it. I'm sick of voting for "the lesser of two evils". The system is corrupt and broken, and I won't give it any further illusion of legitimacy by casting a ballot. However, I still keep my voter registration current, as a gesture that I'm ready to vote as soon as there's an election worth participating in.
Russell is dead right about this one. stePH, I feel as frustrated as you do about the things you mentioned... right down to the lesser of two evils concept... but taking your ball and staying home IS the reason the system is broken. Too many people are taking that approach, and it's just a lazy cop out. To fix things, you have to get involved. Corruption (and the perception of corruption) is pervasive because it is allowed to start... it starts because no one paying attention is willing to make the effort to stop it.
Most people (and I include myself in this number) don't pay enough attention at all levels. In the UK (if I recall correctly) you vote for the party you want in power at the local level. The winning party votes at the next level up, and so on, until the top party gets to choose the PM. In the U.S., it might as well be that way, because most people only pay attention to the Presidential race. When they do go and vote, they tend to vote for who they think is going to win, instead of who they want; this is why no "Third party" has a chance in this country. Too many people are convinced that having their candidate lose is the same as "throwing away my vote" - which is utter B.S. - and eliminate their real candidate to keep a worse one from winning. (I put "Third party" in quotes because I consider our "two-party" system to be a fallacy. There are certainly differences between them, but I feel they have an incestuous, symbiotic motivation to remain the Two Parties.)
But my point is, the reason there is no one for you to like at the National level is that no one is making sure there are people TO like at the State, County, and municipal levels. The issues that actually affect most voters - taxes, education, campaign finance reform, aid programs - are actually really controlled and implemented at the State and local level, too;
boring, right? Which is why the national candidates have to come up with flashy, "hot-button", puppet-shows ... like gay marriage, abortion, intelligent design. All issues that either don't actually affect most people personally (but provoke some strong reaction), or polarize people and make them abandon careful consideration of the candidates.
Or, just maybe, you've found "something wrong" with each candidate (with the help of our even-handed and unbiased media, I am sure), and instead of rationally evaluating them on all of their positions, you've discounted each one on based on that one flaw. All I know is, when you withhold your vote, you are stuck with what is chosen for you. Unfortunately, that means we are all stuck with it, too.