>>>>Interesting (disclaimer: lots will change between now and 2012 election and I don't see him losing at all - yet)
>>>>http://www.gallup.com/poll/148076/2012-Voter-Preferences-Obama-Republican-Remain-Close.aspx
>>>
>>>Of course given a choice I'd vote for Generic Republican before i would any of the ones actually running <g>
>>
>>ROFL! A "generic Republican" is much better than the current options.... :o)
>
>
>We should make it a crime so that anyone who actually wants to be President, we can just round up and toss in jail.
>
>My vote is for Demarchy.

An avid reader of Alastair Reynolds, I presume?

Demarchy is exactly what I'd choose - electronic voting at any time, anyone interested gets a go at it, nothing is sacred but the perfection of the voting system, and the liberty to choose a community. Everything else is up to the vote of anyone involved.

Kudos to Reynolds for stepping out of the rigid scheme of social systems available in SF: in 99% of the books you can choose between statist totalitarianism, corporate totalitarianism, feudalism and warlords. The only other guy that comes to mind as stepping out of the box (after three beers (in american units: five) - can't remember the other two exceptions) is Neal Stephenson with his franchise/ungoverned system.

>Randomly pick people to fill offices.
>
>You know anyone running for President will be spending a $1,000,000,000+ to do so, either on a platform of feeding the poor or fiscal responsibility.
>
>It'd be funnier if it wasn't true.

That's what passes for democracy nowadays - first they tell you it can't work in a society of more than a few thousand people (yet we quite democratically vote with our wallets, mouse clicks etc every day, on this planet-sized Internet), then they tell you that system of parties is the only viable solution to this alleged problem and before you know it you're back in the same old party system of 200 years ago.