Beating around the bushes

Sounds like Hugh Masekela: beatin' aroun de bush

But that is not it, it's about my beating around the
bush with this blog, not getting to anything
definitive.

But first, hopefully, another brief digression.

If you take two sufficiently large sets with
enough variation, you are likely to find
information in both which is similar.  To put
it another way, if you select two individuals
randomly from two separates sets,  allegiances
,you might say, then you might expect some
commonality between the individuals as to
behaviors and ideas .

Now, of course when I started this blog, I thought
I had a solution, and it probably is, but here's another.
And I also believe it might save some money.

So, yes it takes a good deal of work to implement
but here goes:

The two years before a presidential election, a committee
of electors is elected.   That may sound redundant, but
it would be a non-partisan election, and I'm not exactly
sure how it would work, but national it scope.

These electors would be responsible for how the
presidential election proceeds.  The number
of candidates, how many candidates from each
party, etc.

The question I am not sure about it how to deal with
a sitting president, I think, it might be negotiated between
that president and the committee.

But the idea would be to involve more people
into the process from a greater level of diversity
and at the same time, ideally, save money.