The problem with more frequent elections is that it would tend to prevent any progress whatsoever. The four year term of the President is considered to be one of the strongest aspects of the American system, and only not followed in other nations where there is too much distrust between the different factions. I suppose the way things have been going in recent years, the level of distrust has indeed been increasing, very quickly, so it may seem like such a radical Constitutional change is warranted. I would think that would be a shame though -- I'd far rather work to rebuild the trust that has been lost rather than abandon such an important aspect of our system.
Regarding changing the electoral process, I don't think that's a real significant issue. It was random chance that it slid one way versus the other in the recent election, and there is no reason to think that it tends to slide one way or the other more often, so much as to warrant changing it. I cannot make an argument to
keep the electoral system, though, other than the fact that it doesn't
need to be changed.
The term limit for the President is essential to avoid the tyranny I mentioned earlier. In this day-and-age of charisma-over-substance, our system needs even greater protections against leaders who sell one thing and then surreptitiously pursue other aims. We have a bunch of discussions on these boards wherein members bemoan all the aspects of our commercial marketplace that puts them at a disadvantage. We see complaints about how companies can change their prices day-to-day, and even from person-to-person, based on market intelligence. There are so many ways, legal and proper, for companies to maximize their profit at the expense of the consumer, and many consumers feel aggrieved. What is remarkable is how few of these consumers realize how these practices are a reflection of the policies of the President they themselves voted into office. That's because they voted for that President due to a few other issues, not realizing how much that election would adversely affect their life otherwise. (Of course, to be honest, it is those aspects of this President's policies that I
personally support most -- it's the rest of his shenanigans that I disagree with.
)
Finally, regarding the media's right to present opinion: That's yet-another fundamental aspect of America's strength. The freedom of the press was never intended to protect solely the Fourth Estate's right to print uncontested facts, but has always been intended to protect the right of the press to advocate diverse perspectives for the population to consider.
