> Well that will take longer than two terms.

That...depends. If Lessig could get elected President with a platform of very specific reforms of the type he is talking about and a pledge to resign in favor of his VP when that package was complete, it would almost certainly mean that his campaign was significant in mobilizing popular attention on those issues in a way which affect the composition of the next Congress and change the political prospects for those reforms. (Particularly in the House.

> Congress doesn't even play along with the people who are incahoots in rigging the system. It's beyond ridiculous to believe they will play along with their own destruction.

Lessig's proposed reforms won't destroy Congress (arguably, it would free Congress.)

I strongly agree with your point that pushing back against the kind of groundswell that would be necessary to get Lessig elected would be hard, and he thus stands quite substantially better odds of getting his agenda through (especially narrow as it is) than typical.

That said, I think you miss the parent's point in your last sentence. It would not destroy congress as an entity, but it would change the landscape sufficiently that it safe incumbents would be at risk of losing their seats. That is always what limits reforms of campaign process.

I appreciate the idea of going after a very strong mandate. If he runs that way, and wins, he has a very convincing case that the people want him to make the reforms he promised.

But, it also makes it very hard for him to win. He has to find a running mate willing to play second fiddle, but also strong enough to win on his (her) own, because everybody would know that voting Lessig-Foo really means voting Foo-for-President.

Sounds like a recipe for failure.

Yes, this is absurd. "I'll serve as president only until pigs fly."

agree, the message doesn't match reality on this one.