and repeating soemthin over and over and over as if that gives it any validity? You are starting to sound like Al Gore "I just want to count every vote", its inculting to my intelligence!

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?



I suggest you run your scenario in our current system, and see what result you get, first, with two months in between election and presidency as it is. Again, you aren't being fair with regards to it.

In my scheme you don't have to hold primaries since everyone is included in the first one, you can start the election way back where we would first be holding our primaries.

all I am asking is you use some common sense with the scheme. If everyone liked the Hawk so much most likely he would get the 55% majority the first time around.

I thought the idea was to make it difficult?

that is difficult, you must at least keep track fo a date over and over, and be 'COMMITED' to the task of voting.

I must be getting through to you if you keep watering down the scheme to make it easier.

nothing is being watered down. Look at the origional plan. Its the same. (we have absentee ballots currently BTW).

-Justin Kelly