Remember the Pepsi Challenge marketing promotion from the 1970s and 1980s?

If you missed it, the gimmick was simple. Random shoppers were asked to sample two beverages and decide which they liked best. Then the person would reveal their choice as either the mainstay Coca-Cola or the challenger Pepsi. The results always seemed to show Americans liked Pepsi best.

But what would have happened if test-tasters found both drinks vile and simply spewed them out before swallowing?

It might have been funny for TV viewers then, but that’s effectively what we have now in selecting the next president of the United States.

Regardless of one’s political affiliation or opinion on the major issues facing our country, few people will argue the U.S. presidential race has devolved into unprecedented territory.

Apparently, this presidential race will go down in history as the race in which a great number of voters vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate.

Data released last week by the Gallup organization indicates the top reason voters use to rationalize their support for a candidate is not liking something about the opposing candidate.

Let’s consider that a bit further.

It’s not the issues.

It’s not that they feel connected with one of the two major party candidates.

It’s not that they feel either candidate is a great leader.

In fact, it’s just the opposite.

Nearly 1-in-3 voters cite the belief that one or the other of the two major candidates is either unqualified, dishonest or lacks the temperament for the office, thus they throw their support behind the lesser of the two evils.

Something is wrong in our system of selecting candidates if voters must choose between two lackluster candidates. Perhaps it’s time to rethink our system of choosing the best candidates to be on the ballot?