A better method of electing a president

[dtotire]

We need a better method of electing presidents. The present method is chaotic and costly, and doesn’t get the most qualified candidates. Money rather than merit determines who is elected president. We cannot afford to elect any more mediocrities.
I would suggest that candidates for President be nominated by a committee composed of anyone who is or has been the Governor of a state. This committee would evaluate the various candidates and select several of the most qualified, who would then be placed on the ballot. Voters would make the final decision, by selecting all those who they found approvable. The candidate with the most approvable votes would become the President. If no one received a majority, there would be a runoff election. The winner would be a consensus President, who would be able to unite the country. This method would end the long and drawn-out process we have today, and be far less costly. There would be few, if any negative campaign ads which turn off the public and may be responsible for the low turnout at the polls.

[slackmaster]

1. The real problem is the very best people don't want that job

It puts you and your family under constant global public scrutiny, doesn't pay very well, and carries a risk of getting killed on the job that even worse than that of cab drivers.

I heard once that no President has ever left office with a higher net worth than he had when he started.

Every President in my memory has aged far more than the years he spent on the job. Two were shot, and one died.

[unblock]

2. a major increase in federal financing would help quite a bit.

but the 2-party system is the real culprit. if even minor parties and independents had equal access to equal sized, huge campaign budgets, that would make a world of difference.