It is not altogether unusual in American history for the major-party nominees for president to evoke disdain from the American public. Presidential campaigns tend to be contentious affairs, with animosity and bitterness often lingering after the outcome has been decided.

In a healthy political system, though, our elected leaders eventually are supposed to move forward in the spirit of cooperation and compromise to solve the nation's problems.

This year, however, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has shown the ability to inspire, to unify or to put an end to the distrust and divisiveness. We see on the horizon more of the same partisan gridlock of which Americans have grown increasingly weary.

In the coming weeks, The Canton Repository Editorial Board will endorse candidates in several local, state and federal races. In the race that matters most to Americans, however, we are declining to endorse what would amount to the lesser of two deeply flawed candidates.

Our case against Clinton

Hillary Clinton's resume indicates both executive and legislative experience. As first lady she led a team that examined the nation's health-care system, a precursor for the Affordable Care Act, and put in place the State Children's Health Insurance Program. She served two terms as senator from New York (not her home state) before her four-year stint as secretary of state under President Barack Obama. She met with political leaders from around the world, brokered cease-fire agreements and sat in the situation room the night secret forces took out Osama bin Laden.

It is her missteps and flip-flops, as well as her penchant for secrecy, that give us pause.

The deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, in Benghazi in 2012 continue to trouble many Americans, as does the fallout of her overall strategy throughout the Middle East.

Her decision to use a private email server as secretary of state, to echo FBI Director James Comey, was "extremely careless." And not simply because 113 emails of the tens of thousands reviewed by the FBI contained classified information, potentially putting our national security at risk, but because the whole scenario reveals a person driven by ambition who puts politics above transparency.

The connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton-led State Department also are disturbing. Donors to the foundation, as the Associated Press has documented, sought favors from the State Department. Major foreign governments that donated to the foundation received a boost in arms export authorizations from the State Department, the International Business Times has reported.

On the campaign trail, Clinton has exhibited a disturbing aloofness. She has not held a true news conference in 288 days — a 16-minute Q&A with her traveling press corps on an airport tarmac Sept. 8 does not qualify, in our opinion. Her campaign botched an explanation of a recent bout of pneumonia, which led her to become "overheated" and stumble at a Sept. 11 commemoration service. Over the past week, Clinton and her campaign have called Trump supporters "deplorables" in various ways.

She has shown a tendency to oscillate on policy positions when it's convenient, for example calling the Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" in trade agreements, only to denounce it later as a job-killing pact.

These and other examples underscore why so many people view her as dishonest and untrustworthy.

Our case against Trump

Donald Trump is undeniably a master showman, but with that has come a tendency, or at least a frequency, to hurl insults without regard for consequences. Over the past month, new handlers have tried to rebrand Trump's image to make him appear more congenial, more compassionate and more disciplined. We don't buy into the notion that he's suddenly more presidential. He can't wipe away his remarks the way a Clinton employee wiped away a portion of her email server.

The candidate whose pitch to "Make America Great Again" has denigrated immigrants and racial minorities; mocked a disabled reporter; slighted the heroism of Sen. John McCain, a prisoner of war during Vietnam and the Republican Party's 2008 nominee; openly belittled the Gold Star parents of a Muslim-American soldier who gave his life in service to this country; called his primary rivals and his critics "losers" and "lightweights"; and blacklisted reporters and news organizations that printed anything unflattering about him.

His proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States and deport millions of undocumented immigrants are both reprehensible and impractical. So, too, is the cornerstone of his campaign, which is to build a wall along the border with Mexico and make the Mexican government pay for it. He has offered no concrete plan for defeating the Islamic State and has spoken cavalierly about using nuclear weapons.

And even though supporters like him because he "says what he means and means what he says," Trump is no better than Clinton when it comes to openness and transparency. He needs to explain why he won't release his tax returns. It's not a requirement, but it is tradition. Trump continues to say he won't release tax returns because he's under audit, yet there's nothing barring anyone under audit from making returns public. He could release prior years' tax returns to shed light on how much he pays in taxes and how much he's worth. Those also would offer insight into his myriad business dealings.

Yes, Trump has shown savvy for "the art of the deal" in business, but, if elected, would become the first president to take the oath with no previous elected, appointed or military public experience.

Trump has promised to take a no-nonsense, tough-guy approach to America's enemies, but he has demonstrated a level of petulance and insecurity that indicate he lacks the temperament required of the job.

System is broken

This election should awaken Americans to the fact our political system is broken. There is no place for the type of invective we've witnessed over the last year and a half. Nor is there a place for the breadth and depth of influence on our elections and public policy-making that comes so easily for special interest groups.

Third-party options, namely Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, also fail to rise to the high standards of the country's highest office.

It's with these considerations in mind that we cannot endorse any candidate for president this year.