> instead of term limits, make it you have to win each election with 5% more of the electorate?
But that would be an exponential increase, an increase without bound that would sweep past 100% as if it was standing still.
If a candidate won a substantial majority in one election, that rule might decrease his chances to be re-elected because the stakes would be raised in the following contest. So being popular would count as a handicap.
> He would have to be head-and-shoulder above the competition, yes, but he could run.
More to the point, he would have to be 5% more popular each time he ran. That's not likely. And eventually he would have to win more than 100% of the vote.
