Incumbents have an advantage over challengers.
When Obama was doing a campaign stop in 2012, the press had to cover it... because at any moment he could have announced a new policy or military effort.  Mitt Romney was begging for that kind of coverage.

Whomever the Democrats pick, they'll be at a similar disadvantage.  As incumbent, Trump will get more attention.  It's unavoidable.

Mexico tries to fix this unfairness by saying, you just can't run for any reelection.  The Confederacy had the same rule.  But Mexico's experience has not been great - Presidents of Mexico behave with impunity because they know that inauguration day is the pinnacle of their careers.  They know they will never face the people again.  

But there is another way.  We should let people run for re-election, but it should be a yes or no question.  Obama should have had to run, not against Romney, but simply, "no.". 

If a majority says "yes," the incumbent gets another term.  No need to have a challenger go through a big campagin.  If the majority says "no," the incumbent is disqualified, and you start an election cycle with two new candidates.  You could also do this with Congress and state house and other elections.

What do you think?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The only reason an incumbent may have an advantage is because they have already won an election. They have earned the attention. Also plenty of incumbents have been voted out.

Plus you are forcing people to make a decision on the incumbent in the middle of their term in order to allow time for campaigns and a lot could change over that time. You are limiting the time to implement their agenda. You are also forcing the incumbent to have to spend time dealing with the distraction of not just one but two elections during their term.

You are also putting the incumbents party at a disadvantage because they have to wait for the yes no election before they can start to come up with an election strategy while the other party will have a few years head start.

On top of that, you would be setting up a situation where you would have three separate elections to determine who is president.

I think the current primary and general election is enough. I think your proposal is actually kind of silly based on silly presumptions.

---

1. I think you are still bitter over 2016. 2. There is still an Electoral College. 3. I think you have finally accepted that Trump will win again in 2020 4. See point 1

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

No.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why don’t you just come out and say you don’t want the electoral college?

---

One of your worst ideas yet Mike

---

The only reason an incumbent may have an advantage is because they have already won an election. They have earned the attention. Also plenty of incumbents have been voted out.

Plus you are forcing people to make a decision on the incumbent in the middle of their term in order to allow time for campaigns and a lot could change over that time. You are limiting the time to implement their agenda. You are also forcing the incumbent to have to spend time dealing with the distraction of not just one but two elections during their term.

You are also putting the incumbents party at a disadvantage because they have to wait for the yes no election before they can start to come up with an election strategy while the other party will have a few years head start.

On top of that, you would be setting up a situation where you would have three separate elections to determine who is president.

I think the current primary and general election is enough. I think your proposal is actually kind of silly based on silly presumptions.

The incumbent could start campaigning to win the yes/no vote as soon as they win their first election.
If the incumbent wins the "yes/no" vote, there is no challenger. The incumbent gets another term, the end.
  If the incumbent loses, the incumbent goes home.  Either way he only has one election to think about, and two or four years to prepare for it.
As for us, yes, we would probably have three elections to determine who the president will be. I don't think that's a big deal, but if you think it's a big deal, the two elections we have already could become a single election with instant runoff voting, were you mark your ballot with who is your first choice, your second choice, your third choice etc.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1.  I think you are still bitter over 2016.  2.  There is still an Electoral College.  3.  I think you have finally accepted that Trump will win again in 2020  4.  See point 1

1. I'm bitter that Trump and Hillary were the two choices, yes. I'd be just as bitter if Hillary had won, maybe more. I think that's a separate issue, though. Both parties need to improve their primary process but that's not what I'm talking about here.

2. We could count the votes in the President's yes/no referendum in terms of the electoral college.  The president would earn electoral votes in states that had more yes voters than no votes, and he would need 270 votes.

3. I've always thought Trump's chances for reelection were about as good as Obama's or W's.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Romney couldn't get press because hes boring. Trump got more press than any candidate in history because hes entertaining.

---

Why don’t you just come out and say you don’t want the electoral college?

One bad thing about the electoral college is that it requires the parties to agree on a single candidate before the election takes place, but it provides no process for them to do so. So states have been making this up as they go along, with Iowa and New Hampshire having these bizarrely early votes. Their voters always get more say and more choices than voters in other states, but why? Some states are winner-take-all, some are not. Etc.

The other bad thing is that a state will give away its electoral votes to a candidate who only won a plurality from the voters. Both times Bill Clinton won, he had less than 50% of the vote in most of the states he won. Most of the voters in most of the states that he won wanted someone else to be President. In those states, they should have re-run the election with only the top two candidates on the ballot, take away Perot and the minor party guys.

But other than that, it's a good system. A popular vote would be worse because it would still have the same two problems I mention above. And it would add a new problems about having to have a standard voter registration form across all states, having to do a full nationwide recount if there was ever any problem, and campaigns having to spend a lot more money and visit a lot more places. Letting campaigns focus on just swing states makes the whole thing cheaper.

---

Romney couldn't get press because hes boring.  Trump got more press than any candidate in history because hes entertaining.

That's absolutely true.
But is it good?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why don’t you just come out and say you don’t want the electoral college?

He has, he just likes inventing new ways to say it. Next he'll propose that we do away with Federalism since some States dont hold elections the way he thinks they should.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why don’t you just come out and say you don’t want the electoral college?

He has, he just likes inventing new ways to say it. Next he'll propose that we do away with Federalism since some States dont hold elections the way he thinks they should.

Ohyou.gif

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why don’t you just come out and say you don’t want the electoral college?

One bad thing about the electoral college is that it requires the parties to agree on a single candidate before the election takes place, but it provides no process for them to do so. So states have been making this up as they go along, with Iowa and New Hampshire having these bizarrely early votes. Their voters always get more say and more choices than voters in other states, but why? Some states are winner-take-all, some are not. Etc.

The other bad thing is that a state will give away its electoral votes to a candidate who only won a plurality from the voters. Both times Bill Clinton won, he had less than 50% of the vote in most of the states he won. Most of the voters in most of the states that he won wanted someone else to be President. In those states, they should have re-run the election with only the top two candidates on the ballot, take away Perot and the minor party guys.

But other than that, it's a good system. A popular vote would be worse because it would still have the same two problems I mention above. And it would add a new problems about having to have a standard voter registration form across all states, having to do a full nationwide recount if there was ever any problem, and campaigns having to spend a lot more money and visit a lot more places. Letting campaigns focus on just swing states makes the whole thing cheaper.

---

Romney couldn't get press because hes boring.  Trump got more press than any candidate in history because hes entertaining.

That's absolutely true.
But is it good?

63 million people and 302 electors seem to think so.

---

---

That's absolutely true.
But is it good?

63 million people and 302 electors seem to think so.

No, those people and electors only said it was superior to the single alternative offered, which was Hillary.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

63 million people and 302 electors seem to think so.

No, those people and electors only said it was superior to the single alternative offered, which was Hillary.

Odd, my selection was neither Trump nor Shillary.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No, those people and electors only said it was superior to the single alternative offered, which was Hillary.

Odd, my selection was neither Trump nor Shillary.

Then I guess you weren't one of the 63 million JJ referred to.  I wasn't either.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You missed the point again. Although, I don't disagree with the notion that there could be a better way to vet candidates.

---

63 million people and 302 electors seem to think so.

No, those people and electors only said it was superior to the single alternative offered, which was Hillary.

Odd, my selection was neither Trump nor Shillary.

Then I guess you weren't one of the 63 million JJ referred to.  I wasn't either.

See how you move the goalposts?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

"I don't want to abolish the electoral college, but want to manipulate the process enough to where the candidate of my choice has a greater chance of being elected all while pretending I am fine with the current process " -mikesez

Our founding fathers truly are geniuses.

---

"I don't want to abolish the electoral college, but want to manipulate the process enough to where the candidate of my choice has a greater chance of being elected all while pretending I am fine with the current process " -mikesez

Our founding fathers truly are geniuses.

I don't care if my choice wins or not.
I do think your choice should have had to win more than 45% support among Republican voters before becoming our party's choice though.
And he should have had to win 50% support among Florida voters before he got our state's electoral votes.

I don't want to make it easier for my choice to win.  I want to make it harder for Anybody's choice to be forced down Everybody's throat.

---

No, those people and electors only said it was superior to the single alternative offered, which was Hillary.

Then I guess you weren't one of the 63 million JJ referred to.  I wasn't either.

See how you move the goalposts?

Fine, technically some of those 63 million voters may have been thinking "Trump will be better than not just Hillary, but also the green party, and the Constitution party, and the reform party, and the libertarian party, etc"

But you and I both know that the vast majority of them were just thinking "there are only two choices, and Trump will be better than Hillary."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.