Here's a thought problem:

Suppose that near the end of President Smith's first term, Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait yet again. Smith, being somewhat of a pacifist, dithers, and his reelection campaign becomes essentially a referendum on his war policy. His opponent's a saber-rattling hawk who promises to kick Saddam's sorry ass but good, once and for all. Time is of the essence, as Saddam is consolidating his position in Kuwait.

Under your scheme, Smith's policy, if not Smith himself, wins by default, and Saddam gets Kuwait, because by the time the issue is resolved, amid all the controversy and high passion of the threat of war, it's too late to do anything.

In what way is it good for American policy to be determined by default, by an institutionally-mandated inability to make up our minds?

Like I said a vote every one - two week that can be filled out either by stoping by the poles at any time during the day (possibly hold the election over a two day period) or by filling out something and sending it in the mail.

I thought the idea was to make it difficult? I must be getting through to you if you keep watering down the scheme to make it easier. You just don't want to admit that the scheme itself is fundamentally flawed, but eventually you'll adjust it to oblivion...where it belongs.

This dog don't hunt.

--Robert