Do you think US election campaigns take too long?

[Laura Corin]

Please: don't mention parties, personalities or political issues - this question is about process, not politics.

 

I'm struck at present by the difference between UK and US systems. Ours isn't a presidential system, so we vote for a local member of parliament, and the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs becomes the prime minister. So we are voting for our favoured representative, but also trying to work out what effect our vote will have on the overall picture.

 

Anyway, traditionally, the general election takes four weeks: the serving prime minister announces the date (the election has to happen within five years of the previous election, but the date is up to the prime minister to fix) and then it's over within a month. The US presidential election seems endless in comparison, partly because of the primaries which we don't have.

 

I can see pros and cons on each side: a short campaign concentrates everyone's minds but a long one might allow the electorate to get to know the candidates better. What do you think?

 

Laura

[TXMomof4]

It is too long. THe whole process gets lost - no one really gets to know the candidate better because all they are supposed to get to know about him/her is the public face of them. It's exhausting and demoralizing and I think people end up paying far less attention to it because it never. ends.

[Kate in Arabia]

I think it's too long and takes too much money. IMO they should have a shorter time and a flat amount that each candidate gets to spend (or have spent on them).

 

Do they have monetary caps or any monetary regulation in the British system?

[Guest Katia]

Yes.

 

And it feels like it never stops. There is no 'running the country', only 'how will this help me get re-elected'.

 

Ugh.

[TXMary2]

It is definitely too long. We need tighter rules about campaign times. There should be mandatory debates so people can't back out of debating who they are afraid of.

 

Also, TERM LIMITS. If they can't stay in office forever then the perpetual campaigning would have to end.

[Laura Corin]

 

Do they have monetary caps or any monetary regulation in the British system?

 

But with only 60 million people and four weeks, there's a natural limit, so far, to just how crazy it can get. There are lobby groups, but not to the extent that they exist in the US. Donations over a certain amount have to be declared, and donors must be UK citizens, but I think that's about it. I might be wrong though.

 

Laura

[KnitWit]

Yes.

 

And it feels like it never stops. There is no 'running the country', only 'how will this help me get re-elected'.

 

Ugh.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this! The whole focus always seems to be on what is best for whatever upcoming election and NOT what is best for the people...and I apply that across the board to ALL people, parties, etc.

 

It is no longer a *service*....but BIG BUSINESS!

[Hockey Mom]

Yes.

 

And it feels like it never stops. There is no 'running the country', only 'how will this help me get re-elected'.

 

Ugh.

 

:iagree:

It is definitely too long. We need tighter rules about campaign times. There should be mandatory debates so people can't back out of debating who they are afraid of.

 

Also, TERM LIMITS. If they can't stay in office forever then the perpetual campaigning would have to end.

 

I really think the pool of candidates would be better if they knew going in that there were term limits. Along with that, I'd suggest a slightly-above minimum wage for this public service as well. Political office should be done out of sense of duty, not a life-long career of sucking off the public teet.

 

WRT the OP; yes, the election campaigns last too long and the amount of money spent on these campaigns is obscene.

[Tap]

Too long.

 

 

There should be a specified time limit.

There should be a set fund for campaigning determined by the population and funded by the government. period. No fundraising!

There should be limits on what a politician can do during the election period to better clarify what is campaigning and what is not. There should be NO fundraising for campaigns.

There should be at least one place where all the information gathered or presented in any campaign can be viewed in its entirety....ala the internet preferably.

Anyone in office running for a new office should have an accountability to the held office during the time they are campaigning.

[TXMary2]

:iagree:

 

 

I really think the pool of candidates would be better if they knew going in that there were term limits. Along with that, I'd suggest a slightly-above minimum wage for this public service as well. Political office should be done out of sense of duty, not a life-long career of sucking off the public teet.

 

WRT the OP; yes, the election campaigns last too long and the amount of money spent on these campaigns is obscene.

 

 

Exactly, I am glad you mentioned that. There is something VERY WRONG with these "public servants" becoming millionaires while they are in Congress. CORRUPTION reigns. FTR I have no problem with rich people or making money, but it must be done legally.

[brehon]

Dear heavens, yes. Just at the federal level we're electing someone almost every year (nationally, in general, not every state every year). I think, however, the are myriad issues at play here, including the ones other posters mentioned.

 

One of the big issues (for me, at least) is the primaries. Politics is so completely polarized now that primary candidates (for all political parties, but certainly for the big two) are nominated and elected from the extremes of the party. Therefore, in the general election, the 2 candidates (even if they personally might consider themselves "moderate" on a given issue) have staked out extreme positions which generally don't reflect the views of the majority of the electorate (and this is regardless of how individuals in said electorate may self-identify ideologically).

 

And, why, you may ask, would a candidate verbalize an extreme position on an issue that s/he may not personally hold? Because the reliable voters in primaries are usually those at the far end of whatever spectrum and, let us not forget, the ones who usually fund the candidates/campaigns. Too, the gerrymandering in various districts nationwide works to ensure that seats remain in a given party's hands; this encourages extremism and discourages people who may hold more centrist views on any given issue. It's an awful cycle and not one I see changing any time soon.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Gosh, yes. I whole-heartedly agree that these take too long. I heard a long-time politician complain how it is getting worse. When he first went to Washington many years ago, he said that the campaign season was about a year long. Now is it ALL THE TIME. I can't stand it! I don't want to pay my public officials to campaign, I want their salary to go toward the job they were elected to do!!! But then again, I can't stand political parties. Their purpose seems to be furthering their existence rather than any representation of the people.

 

Okay, I am stepping down off my soapbox.

[Stacy in NJ]

We get to weed out the real incompetents. The endless scrutiny, the grueling schedule, the constant media attention, all are a kind of test for the candidates. If they can survive the primaries and then the general election, they've been fully vetted.

 

In 1972 Edmund Muskie's presidential campaign was ruined because he broke down in tears in public. Recently, John Edward's presidential run, and subsequently his being selected as Obama's VP, was ruined by indiscrete behavior. It's better to find out a candidate is not capable prior to winning.

[Xuzi]

Shorter elections is one of the reasons moving to Canada (of which my DH is a citizen) looks so attractive. :lol: It's also another reason why I'm so glad we don't watch TV any more. It seems like there's *always* a campaign commercial for *something* coming on.