I don't care for this outcome. (Or that nobody's left to even perfunctorily challenge Kenyatta Johnson in my district.)

The whole process of gathering petitions and signature challenges seems perverse to me.

We should evade the whole nonsense by adopting a deposit system, at least as an alternative. Rather than harassing people for signatures, a place on the ballot would require depositing a sum of money, which would be returned to you after the election should you win a sufficient share of votes.

In the United Kingdom, the deposit is £500 (Approximately $ 615) and is returned to any candidate who wins at least 5 % of the vote. (Both the deposit and vote share required for it to be returned were higher in the past) I would suggest a higher fee and vote threshold, if only to aggressively filter some more of the crazies and delusional also-rans out. The deposit, at least, should also probably be higher for city-wide offices. Perhaps the deposit amount could also be adjusted for wealth and income, which might have an interesting side-effect if the deposit amounts were public.

This might seem peculiar or unfair, but its a common practice and given the cost and difficult of soliciting sufficient signatures, might be less burdensome and reduce the incidence of shameful absurdities such as this year's races for district seats on the City Council.

Ultimately, however, the situation is a consequence of a defective political system that problem requires deeper, almost traumatic reform.