Local View: If ‘none of the above’ wins, reforms can follow

What might we learn from the 2016 presidential campaign? Two candidates emerged, both with the highest negative ratings of all time. One, unfortunately, will become our next president. The process is seriously flawed when such negativity prevails.
What if in addition to voting either for the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton or the Republicans’ Donald Trump, there was a specific “none of the above” choice? What if “none of the above” should win, might it not make sense to run two or more new candidates?What if instead of months and years of campaigning for president, the process was shortened to 10 weeks? What if “leaks,” negative advertising, “gotcha” journalism and “dark” money were somehow curtailed and the candidates’ focus and the election process returned to actual issues and policy positions? Personality and character (or lack thereof) are relevant considerations, but how far must the bar be lowered before our election process is deemed unworkable? (Note: Have we not already determined it is unacceptable?)The voting public likely would respond positively to such developments.The media, elected politicians and the political parties might object vociferously with their power, control and revenues imperiled. But their narrow self-interests have taken precedence over true democracy. Government of the people, by the people and for the people is long gone.There would need to be constitutional amendments to implement any such corrective measures, but if such “people power” could indeed be restored, would that not be a worthy outcome of the 2016 presidential welection fiasco? Tom Wheeler is a longtime Duluth-area businessman, civic leader, philanthropist and regular contributor to the News Tribune Opinion page.What might we learn from the 2016 presidential campaign? Two candidates emerged, both with the highest negative ratings of all time. One, unfortunately, will become our next president. The process is seriously flawed when such negativity prevails.
What if in addition to voting either for the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton or the Republicans’ Donald Trump, there was a specific “none of the above” choice? What if “none of the above” should win, might it not make sense to run two or more new candidates?What if instead of months and years of campaigning for president, the process was shortened to 10 weeks? What if “leaks,” negative advertising, “gotcha” journalism and “dark” money were somehow curtailed and the candidates’ focus and the election process returned to actual issues and policy positions? Personality and character (or lack thereof) are relevant considerations, but how far must the bar be lowered before our election process is deemed unworkable? (Note: Have we not already determined it is unacceptable?)The voting public likely would respond positively to such developments.The media, elected politicians and the political parties might object vociferously with their power, control and revenues imperiled. But their narrow self-interests have taken precedence over true democracy. Government of the people, by the people and for the people is long gone.There would need to be constitutional amendments to implement any such corrective measures, but if such “people power” could indeed be restored, would that not be a worthy outcome of the 2016 presidential welection fiasco?Tom Wheeler is a longtime Duluth-area businessman, civic leader, philanthropist and regular contributor to the News Tribune Opinion page.