The second strategy presented is that of using the presidential election cycle to leverage fundamental change. The candidate would have to be credible and demonstrate a singular focus on removing fundamental corruption from the government. The candidate would make a two-part pledge: if elected, he/she would hold the government hostage until Congress enacts legislation to remove the fundamental corruption at the heart of our government. Second, once the reform program is enacted, the person elected would resign. No wonder again that he gives this strategy a 2% chance of happening. It won’t because the voting public will never accept the hostage-taking nor voting for a temporary President. Although Lessig modifies this strategy to say that even a “modest showing would spark an enormous amount of energy”, it is extremely doubtful that the voting public, already tired of “foolishness” in government, would get excited about this regency presidency. This surge in energy sounds hollow and contradictory when Lessig noted in his introduction that systemic corruption has taken its toll on participation by the “sensible middle” of the voting public mainly because of loss of trust in the system. This strategy does not seem designed to restore that trust or that needed participation.