Nothing special. The state legislatures would vote, as was done before there was a popular vote, and would subsequently send their electors. The electoral college would then pick the new president.
It depends on the motive. If it was:<br />
1. to get better candidates, then a boycott would result, new candidates would likely be offered that represent acceptable alpha males for the boycotters...and life will move on, unchanged.<br />
2. to show that humans are pissed off and don't have to take it anymore, then their alpha male can step forward and run for president himself, win...and life will move on, unchanged.<br />
3. to reform voting procedures or the election process, then the voting procedures will be changed as well as the election process to appease the masses....and life will move on, unchanged.<br />
4. to eliminate the need for government, then the existing government will panic. Elected officials would likely remain in office until the government could figure out what to do next. This is the most hypothetical choice, because it would require everyone to abstain. If even one person voted, the government could prove that the illusion of democracy still exists. <br />
But if no one - absolutely no one - voted, then the government takes over.<br />
And things get interesting.<br />
It will never happen, of course, because the government will merely employ undercover agents in society to vote. This is why the best boycott isn't for elections, but for the laws that politicians enact.
dunno what would happen if the moon turned pink w/ blue polka dots ?? it has the same chane of happening....
George Bush would be elected again :P
The whole notion of a national popular vote would be thrown out completely and the only votes being cast would be those of the electoral college. Would also mean that something like the 2000 Presidential election wouldn't happen.
the incumbents would be declared winners by default, i imagine.