Oh, there is a basket of deplorables out there, all right — to borrow a phrase from one of the presidential contenders. But it’s not among the voters. It’s the deplorable presidential choices voters have been handed this election year.

Our political system has over the years been skewed by a host of rules and timetables designed to kowtow to regional sensibilities (Hello Iowa!) and partisan needs (welcome to Super Tuesday). This year we are paying the price for all of that.

With all the great talent this nation has produced, the voters are left with a choice between two of the most distrusted presidential candidates ever to share space on one political ballot. Fully two-thirds of American voters have said they distrust both Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and her Republican counterpart Donald Trump. And frankly we can’t blame them.

HILLARY CLINTON

From the moment Clinton stepped on the national stage as first lady, scandal and controversy have followed. From the Whitewater scandal of her early White House years, which sent three of the Clintons’ Arkansas buddies to prison (but not the Clintons themselves), to the more recent scandal over her private email server and its 33,000 deleted emails — controversy has forever dogged Hillary Clinton.

She has spent much of her adult life in the public realm and yet is among the least transparent candidates ever to seek the presidency — her political opponent, who still refuses to release his tax returns, being her only rival in that department. But we’ll get to him later.

As first lady Clinton met behind closed doors with dozens of people seeking to draft an early version of a sweeping health care bill. As secretary of state she was so consumed with her ability to control access to what should be accessible State Department records that she violated department policy using her own server.

When her communications from the night of the Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans were finally revealed it showed her to be an outright liar — spewing nonsense about a protest over an anti-Muslim video while sharing with her own daughter the tragic truth of the terror attack.

And now that some of the emails and her official calendars have been released we know more about the access granted at the State Department to major donors of the Clinton Foundation — which, following her years at State, has become a source of enormous perks for the entire Clinton family.

Even on matters of policy Clinton has proven herself untrustworthy — supporting NAFTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership until it became politically expedient to reverse course; abandoning many of her husband’s criminal justice reforms, which made city streets safer, because that reversal might win her more votes.

With Clinton voters pretty much know what they are getting — and that makes few happy with the choice.

DONALD TRUMP

Which brings us to the newer face on the political scene. Yes, it’s true that voters are looking for an outsider this year. And given the dysfunction in Washington that’s hardly surprising. But is a narcissistic reality TV host and sometime real estate developer the best we can do?

It’s not that business experience in lieu of political experience ought to be a disqualifier. It isn’t, and look no further than the all too brief candidacy of Carly Fiorina for how that kind of candidacy can work. It’s just that good and intelligent business leaders listen and learn from those around them. Trump, on the other hand, is rather like one of those fatally flawed characters in a Shakes­pearean tragedy. Just when you think there might be a “new” Donald Trump he goes on another Twitter rant in the middle of the night.

Trump showed in the course of three debates, especially the one this week, that he lacks anything resembling self-discipline, is prone to temper tantrums and appears utterly unable to focus on matters of policy. And the policies he has espoused bear no resemblance to traditional Republican values or positions.

He has no immigration policy other than “build the wall.” He has expressed no particular concern about balancing the federal budget, even as his pitch for broader child care deductions would add trillions of dollars to the deficit. He is opposed to free trade. And his incoherent foreign policy — which would toss NATO allies overboard for not paying their fair share, while driving us closer to fellow autocrat Vladimir Putin — is already causing enormous damage to this nation’s reputation around?the world.

So these are our choices — which is why for the first time in decades the Boston Herald will not make an endorsement in the presidential contest. We urge our readers to look deep into their own consciences — as we will all have to do — and do the best they can.

Frankly if the Libertarian ticket of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were reversed, they might well deserve a vote — and at the very least they do provide an option for voters inclined toward a protest vote.

Another option, especially for disheartened Republicans and independents, is to pick your favorite as a write-in candidate — Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Mike Pence, or Evan McMullin, a Utah businessman and ex-CIA operative who just slipped into first place in his home state — you know, someone who wouldn’t embarrass you when you talk about it on Nov. 9.