I have heard serious proposals to stick "None of the above" on ballots. What happens after that varies. Some people say if "none of the above" wins, throw out all the candidates and start over. A more realistic approach has it that whoever comes in second is the winner.

But if "None of the Above" gets sixty percent of the vote, and the runner up gets twenty-five percent, it gets pretty hard for the politician to strut around claiming any kind of mandate. And everyone would know it.

If I wasn't opposed in principle to forced service to the state, I would support having political offices be a draft, like jury duty. A certain number of people selected at random from a pool of qualified citizens, and then they go up for election. Could hardly do worse than what we get now. How about a senator who used to be a grocer instead of a lawyer for a change?

I would feel a lot more comfortable having government run by someone who had to be dragged into it than someone who would give his right eye to get his hands on the reins of power. Our current system selects for the latter.