I like this question, although I don't think it could work. Someone who campaigns really well, does not necessarily mean they will fulfill their office well. It also penalizes when there are two good candidates running against each other.
I could see it being more viable if the upper term limit is still along the lines of what we have today. Perhaps a presidential candidate winning an election by landslide could get a maximum term of 8 years, whereas someone just barely winning would have a shortened term of 1-2 years. I would definitely still be concerned about the negative ramifications of potentially more and more dirty campaigning to try and capture the highest portion of votes that others have mentioned.
Are they truly able though? I'll readily admit I'm not very knowledgeable on this, but radio towers have a limited range, right? Satellites have the ability to provide internet and communications to truly remote areas where it may be logistically challenging or impractical to build radio towers.
How is any of the information random? The OP title says vague things like "makes history" and "ruling". While you can guess that the ruling is positive based on it saying that it makes history, the headline on the article is unambiguous and much better in my opinion.
First South Asian country
This describes the manner in which this ruling was historical.
Recognize same-sex marriage.
This describes what the actual ruling is.
To use a hyperbole to illustrate a point, the OP title could just as well describe a situation where Nepal had ruled that same sex couples who marry must be banished to outer space. Hypothetically, It's just as much a historical ruling as what actually happened.
In a nutshell, it seems like the show got cut because viewership had drastically declined and wasn't worth continuing to produce. If there's additional drama behind the scenes, I haven't heard any indication of it yet.
Honestly I'm kind of surprised the twit network is still around at all. Their overall product has seemed really dated to me for a long time and it seems like the podcast advertising realm is a real shit show right now.
I like this question, although I don't think it could work. Someone who campaigns really well, does not necessarily mean they will fulfill their office well. It also penalizes when there are two good candidates running against each other.
I could see it being more viable if the upper term limit is still along the lines of what we have today. Perhaps a presidential candidate winning an election by landslide could get a maximum term of 8 years, whereas someone just barely winning would have a shortened term of 1-2 years. I would definitely still be concerned about the negative ramifications of potentially more and more dirty campaigning to try and capture the highest portion of votes that others have mentioned.