In modern representative democracies, elections serve two key purposes: selecting leaders and reflecting the political preferences of the population. However, these functions are closely linked to ensure that governance is legitimate, effective, and representative. When the connection between these two roles weakens, it can lead to leaders who lack public support and are unable to govern effectively. This disconnect is often seen when elections do not accurately capture the will of the people, creating a sense of illegitimacy among those in power. One reason this disconnect exists is the lack of recognition of blank votes in the electoral process. In France, blank ballots are counted separately from null votes since 2014, but they are not treated as expressed votes. This means that even though citizens may use blank votes to signal dissatisfaction with the political choices available, these votes do not influence the outcome of an election. In contrast, countries like Colombia, Peru, Mauritania, and Mongolia count blank votes and, in some cases, allow them to invalidate an election. This recognition gives voters a way to reject the political offer as a whole, rather than being forced to choose between candidates they may not support. In France and other Western democracies, the electoral system is structured so that the winner is determined solely by the sum of positive votes, regardless of the number of blank, null, or abstained ballots. This setup pushes citizens to choose a candidate, even if none fully meet their expectations. As a result, candidates who are seen as the "least bad" option can win, even if they fail to address broader societal needs. This has led to a situation where political polarization increases, and the democratic process becomes less responsive to the public. According to the theory of Public Choice, which views democracy as a political market, voters should be able to reject political programs they find unsatisfactory. However, when only positive votes are counted, citizens are left with no real choice but to support one of the available candidates. This dynamic encourages candidates to focus on appealing to organized minorities, such as those in political lobbies, rather than seeking broad public support. Over time, this leads to a form of "anti-selection," where the least effective leaders are more likely to win. Despite concerns that recognizing blank votes could destabilize the political system, examples like Mongolia show that it can be done without causing governance crises. In Mongolia, blank votes can invalidate an election if they exceed 10% of the total, but this threshold has never been reached. The presence of a blank vote as a meaningful option encourages political parties to adapt their platforms to better meet public needs, while also increasing voter participation. In contrast, in countries where blank votes are not counted, many citizens choose to abstain from voting, as their ballots have no real impact. Recognizing the blank vote as a legitimate expression of political will could help restore trust in democratic institutions. It would act as a safety valve, allowing citizens to voice dissatisfaction without resorting to abstention, which weakens the legitimacy of the political process. As distrust in leaders grows, and as populist movements rise in response, the need to modernize electoral mechanisms becomes more urgent. In an era of rapid technological and societal change, updating the way we express political preferences is essential to maintaining the vitality of democracy.