Experimental design violation by standard presidential voting process

Much consternation has come to be highlighted in recent years even in the most scrupulous democratic republics with attention to secure vote casting and counting process. That the people tend to elect those candidates that reflect popular opinion is a widely held belief. Popular opinion is elicited by the process of adding up citizen votes that are assigned as ballots received toward electing a candidate nominated to a political party. Despite all transparency with frequent news media polling updates, it is a wonder why huge segments of the electorate remain dissatisfied. A sizeable portion of the answer can be found by questioning the statistical validity of the vote casting and counting process. The authors present arguments in favor of reform that would remove the experimental design violation inherent in electing candidates nominated for President, Prime Minister, Governor, and such other political positions. Some historical examples of good and bad governance are provided to introduce the topic. Brief mention of notable personalities lamenting the loss of political accountability and ethical responsibility of free nations are included. The formidable scheduling constraints for a singular leader of a republic make near impossible effective execution of major decisions in a timely manner. The authors recommend that the Office of Presidency be shared by 3 capable individuals simultaneously, with one among them interfacing with news media personnel.