'None of the above' could be solution

It seems that throughout my adult life, we have had to choose between two presidential candidates that most Americans disliked.

I wish I had $1 for each time I heard somebody tell me that they were voting for candidate A because he was the best between two undesirable choices or "the lesser of two evils."

This year it will be Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton. I do not think it ever will be possible for a third-party candidate to win a national election due to the amount of money that needs to be raised and to mainstream media bias. So, what is the solution? One idea is "None of the Above." Here is how it would work:

The candidates would go through the current primary process. However, there would be an additional candidate on the November ballot - "None of the above." If "None of the above" wins a plurality of votes, each major party would have to renominate another candidate. Then, 30 to 60 days later, we would have another election, in which "None of the above" would also be an option.

Voting continues until one candidate beats not only the other but also "None of the above."

Advantages: The winner would have to be someone persuaded the voters he or she was the best choice, not just the best of two; parties would be forced to nominate somebody who would generate votes outside of their party; and voters could express their displeasure with the choices that were the result of the party nomination process;

Disadvantages: This could add to the costs of a presidential election; and this could take an extended time to be resolved

Steven J. Weinberg

Libertyville