[Melas]

While your suggestion is amusing, it has an obvious flaw: The more popular the president during his/her first election, the poorer his/her chances would be to win a second term.

A President Clinton, elected in a three way race with a popular vote in the low 40's could easily pick up 5% for a second election. By contrast, it would be next to impossible for a popular president with 65% to pick up an additional 5% to make 70.

[backtothestreets]

Yes, it would make it more difficult to win a second term, and that's the point. The office holder, be it the President, senator or representative would have to actually work to retain the constituency that voted for them previously and increase that constituency. Such a change could also add the stipulation a minimum 50% plus one vote be required.

What I'm trying to suggest is a performance driven change. Any change should have office holders working for the voters, not special interest, and definitely not just occupying a place in government with only a time constraint.

Sure a popular president receiving 65% of the popular vote would have to work harder to win another term, but a good leader would find that possible, not impossible, and exactly the sort of leaders that can best serve our nation.

It's bad enough having civil service employees that just spend time in jobs awaiting the time to leave their position without performance. I'd dread the time when this time-served requirement is extended to office holders. I want performance and results, not just people occupying a position for a given period of time.