Why are American elections so long?

[SAVINGRACE]

Any other foreigner wonder about this as well? Here in Australia, the entire process is one month long and most people are sick of it by the end of the first and only debate in the second week. We have already made up our minds, get on with it.

HUFFPOST: "Why does it take Americans so damn long to elect a president? Why? It only took eight months for me to decide to marry my husband; just half a year is needed to grow enough wheat to feed the nation; hell, only nine months is required to gestate an entire human being… why does it take two freaking years to elect a president??

American bloat, that’s what. It’s in our DNA. We like things BIG. Big movies, big portions, big ****, big cars, big houses, and, it seems, BIG presidential campaigns. Which translates into LONG presidential campaigns. Which might be a fascinating civic exercise if it weren’t for the hideous amounts of money being raised, spent, lost and won in the process of it all. Las Vegas of the Beltway.

As I watch the growing list of “Weird Things Ben Carson Said Today,” make note of the continued caterwauling amongst GOP debate participants, check what St. Bernie supporters accuse Hillary (or the media) of this week, or register the thinning novelty of the Trump & Pony Show, one thing becomes categorically clear:

Our presidential campaigns are TOO LONG.

Not just a little too long, but waaaay too long. And like anything that’s gotten out of control—blockbusters that need an edit; wayward children left to entertain themselves; idle hands that attract the devil’s handiwork—this ridiculous pageant of political pomposity (I did that on purpose) needs abbreviating to a size that resembles any measure of logic. Did you not find it stunning to witness our northern neighbors somehow manage to elect a prime minister in less than three months? Apparently Canadians are a more decisive lot than we “I haven’t decided yet” folks down here in the lower regions, and for people as competitive as Americans, you’d think that would’ve stirred some reflexive response! But no… we’re arguing about who’s been kicked to the kids table, or who lied about which lie, and we’re still a year away!!

I got tired just writing that."

huffingtonpost.com/lorraine-devon-wilke/the-elephant-in-the-middl_b_8481446.html

 

[EleanorArr]

I reckon that huge amounts of money are not a symptom but a cause of nearly-endless campaigns. In the UK (not sure about Australia, maybe it’s similar?) there are what are in effect spending restrictions (up to a point) on election campaigns. Plus no one is basically allowed to at least openly campaign until about 6 weeks before hand.

Historically we also didn’t know until about 2 months before it happened when the general election would be - though we now have fixed 5-year parliaments.

I guess being President of the United States is arguably more important than being the MP for Bognor Regis & Littlehampton so it pays to test the candidates fully - but all elections seem to really test is how much money each side can raise and how much they can smear their opponents…

 

[didymus]

Any other foreigner wonder about this as well? Here in Australia, the entire process is one month long and most people are sick of it by the end of the first and only debate in the second week. We have already made up our minds, get on with it.

HUFFPOST: "Why does it take Americans so damn long to elect a president? Why? It only took eight months for me to decide to marry my husband; just half a year is needed to grow enough wheat to feed the nation; hell, only nine months is required to gestate an entire human being… why does it take two freaking years to elect a president??

huffingtonpost.com/lorraine-devon-wilke/the-elephant-in-the-middl_b_8481446.html

Amen!
In fact it takes almost two years, first a year to start an exploratory committee and fundraising for the first primaries.
You have to wonder what kind of person is willing to go through all the campaigning and begging for dollars necessary for a chance to win the nomination?

If I were King primaries would start in June, conventions after Labor Day. And rather than state primaries I’d have primaries. Yes, that would destroy the influence of the small states, which is the whole point.

 

[EleanorArr]

Amen!
In fact it takes almost two years, first a year to start an exploratory committee and fundraising for the first primaries.
You have to wonder what kind of person is willing to go through all the campaigning and begging for dollars necessary for a chance to win the nomination?

IMHO anyone who wants to be President this badly probably shouldn’t be eligable to run.

The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy had the right idea - the real power was in the hands of the one person in the universe who didn’t want to rule it at all.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

IMHO anyone who wants to be President this badly probably shouldn’t be eligable to run.

The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy had the right idea - the real power was in the hands of the one person in the universe who didn’t want to rule it at all.

As a U.S. citizen, I’ll take that one step further: In the current (last 25 years or so, worse now) anyone who CAN be elected president probably doesn’t deserve to be.

 

[Dante221]

It doesn’t seem to matter
We seem to make the wrong decision anyway!

 

[pianistclare]

We’re gluttons for punishment.

 

[christofirst]

Huge amounts of money change hands during the long course of an election here. I guess the people who profit like it this way. I wish the election was over already.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Huge amounts of money change hands during the long course of an election here. I guess the people who profit like it this way. I wish the election was over already.

to me it is sinful how much money changes hands. I am tired of the election too! Too much money spent, too much campaigning, too many debates! I don’t think the primaries should be spread out so many months and each state has their own rules. very confusing. this particular election is showing how flawed the process really is!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

We need time ti get to know them, and it’s the way the Founding Fathers set things up. I like it; I’m not sick of it at all.

Those who feel it’s “punishment” can forget it once they decide who to vote for, and here, that seems almost a given.

 

[DaveBj]

We’re gluttons for punishment.

Beat me to it

 

[GEddie]

And rather than state primaries I’d have primaries. Yes, that would destroy the influence of the small states, which is the whole point.

Which is why that is not the system.

The country is built around federalism, not popular democracy. Back to the Constitution, preserving the role of the states in governance has been paramount.

Yes, this leads to a more lengthy process, but until roughly 1992, it worked very well.

The real problem is that the President now has too much power. This leads to a very cautious process to choose him (or her).

ICXC NIKA

 

[ChadS]

I reckon that huge amounts of money are not a symptom but a cause of nearly-endless campaigns. In the UK (not sure about Australia, maybe it’s similar?) there are what are in effect spending restrictions (up to a point) on election campaigns. Plus no one is basically allowed to at least openly campaign until about 6 weeks before hand.

Historically we also didn’t know until about 2 months before it happened when the general election would be - though we now have fixed 5-year parliaments.

I guess being President of the United States is arguably more important than being the MP for Bognor Regis & Littlehampton so it pays to test the candidates fully - but all elections seem to really test is how much money each side can raise and how much they can smear their opponents…

I also thought I’d read somewhere that elections in the UK were essentially government funded, in that each party got a base amount of money to conduct their campaigns and fundraising had set limits.

In the US the Presidential Election cycle is just the most visible part of the whole election process. Senators and members of the House of Representatives are in perpetual campaign mode to keep their constituents happy and to raise money. Sure their war chests aren’t anywhere the size presidential candidates need, however, even representatives from small districts will need hundreds of thousands of dollars to run against an opponent. Larger districts can see sizable amounts spent on campaigns, heck even mayoral races can get expensive. It’s not just the Presidential election cycle that is broken it’s the way races our run in this country that needs to be reevaluated.

ChadS

 

[GEddie]

I also thought I’d read somewhere that elections in the UK were essentially government funded, in that each party got a base amount of money to conduct their campaigns and fundraising had set limits.

In the US the Presidential Election cycle is just the most visible part of the whole election process. Senators and members of the House of Representatives are in perpetual campaign mode to keep their constituents happy and to raise money. Sure their war chests aren’t anywhere the size presidential candidates need, however, even representatives from small districts will need hundreds of thousands of dollars to run against an opponent. Larger districts can see sizable amounts spent on campaigns, heck even mayoral races can get expensive. It’s not just the Presidential election cycle that is broken it’s the way races our run in this country that needs to be reevaluated.

ChadS

One of the great flaws in our system is the lack of term limits for all elective offices. Then people could forget about securing their reelections and padding their nest, and start doing their job.

This would have the further effect of lowering the financial bar for election, as no-one would spend anywhere near as much for a seat that could not become a permanent sinecure. It would also “democratize” the process, as more windows would open for new names in the parties.

Too bad it can’t happen now.

ICXC NIKA

 

[aclausen]

Which is why that is not the system.

The country is built around federalism, not popular democracy. Back to the Constitution, preserving the role of the states in governance has been paramount.

Yes, this leads to a more lengthy process, but until roughly 1992, it worked very well.

The real problem is that the President now has too much power. This leads to a very cautious process to choose him (or her).

ICXC NIKA

This complaint has been around at least since Lincoln, and indeed, he was the first president to truly test the limits of executive authority. The fact is that the constitution affords the Executive branch some fairly significant powers, but the president still has to work with Congress if he wants any money, and both he and congress have to work within the limits the constitution and the Supreme Court set.

The real problem always has been fixed election dates. This has always meant that politicians have to be mindful for a large fraction of their term that they’re going to have to win re-election at a specified time.

In the Westminster system until recently the Executive, in the form of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, could time their elections, generally with a maximum lifetime of Parliament of five years. This did lead to governments trying to time elections to their benefit, so that was a flaw, though often it meant governments pushed nearly to the five year limit, hoping to avoid for as long as possible having to face the electorate.

What I’ve seen in my own province in Canada, and in other provinces, as well as the UK, is that fixed election dates have seen campaigns now extend from the old 30-60 day normal election cycle to over a year. The last Federal election in Canada could largely have been seen to have started before the spring budget of 2015 came out, nearly ten months before the November election, and while there are pre-election spending limits put in place, but in the last Canadian election we actually saw the first real PACs in Canadian electoral history, so we’re already well on the way to emulating the worst aspects of American politics.

You put a date down on a calendar that will always be the election, you can be sure that every politician affected by it will begin some sort of campaigning somewhere around the halfway mark, and real campaigning will begin months before the actual formal election. In the US, there isn’t even really a concept of a formal election campaign, because there’s no notion of parliamentary dissolution, so the whole thing basically goes on forever.

To my mind, the very worst part about perpetual electioneering isn’t even the ever growing amount of money needed to win, even just legislative victories, but rather that politicians spend a good deal of their term not really representing their constituents, but rather figuring out how to keep their jobs. It’s like having a job where every few years on a regular basis you will have to win an Iron Man Competition. Tell me, how much time are you going to spend doing your job, and how much time are you going to spend training?

 

[Jeanne_S]

We’re gluttons for punishment.

Pretty much.Anymore it seems like we’re are in a continual political cycle. Waaaaay to much

 

[didymus]

Which is why that is not the system.

The country is built around federalism, not popular democracy. Back to the Constitution, preserving the role of the states in governance has been paramount.

Yes, this leads to a more lengthy process, but until roughly 1992, it worked very well.

The real problem is that the President now has too much power. This leads to a very cautious process to choose him (or her).

ICXC NIKA

What does federalism have to do with primaries?
My point is that scheduling the small states early gives them too much influence. I’d rather have regional primaries or see the bigger states go first.

 

[GEddie]

What does federalism have to do with primaries?
My point is that scheduling the small states early gives them too much influence. I’d rather have regional primaries or see the bigger states go first.

Well, it’s federalism in the sense that it is the states who choose when to hold a primary. And no doubt, the smaller state leaderships know exactly how to take advantage of the system.

If say, CA decided that moving the primary up was desirable to them, they could do so.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

This complaint has been around at least since Lincoln, and indeed, he was the first president to truly test the limits of executive authority. The fact is that the constitution affords the Executive branch some fairly significant powers, but the president still has to work with Congress if he wants any money, and both he and congress have to work within the limits the constitution and the Supreme Court set.

The real problem always has been fixed election dates. This has always meant that politicians have to be mindful for a large fraction of their term that they’re going to have to win re-election at a specified time.

In the Westminster system until recently the Executive, in the form of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, could time their elections, generally with a maximum lifetime of Parliament of five years. This did lead to governments trying to time elections to their benefit, so that was a flaw, though often it meant governments pushed nearly to the five year limit, hoping to avoid for as long as possible having to face the electorate.

What I’ve seen in my own province in Canada, and in other provinces, as well as the UK, is that fixed election dates have seen campaigns now extend from the old 30-60 day normal election cycle to over a year. The last Federal election in Canada could largely have been seen to have started before the spring budget of 2015 came out, nearly ten months before the November election, and while there are pre-election spending limits put in place, but in the last Canadian election we actually saw the first real PACs in Canadian electoral history, so we’re already well on the way to emulating the worst aspects of American politics.

You put a date down on a calendar that will always be the election, you can be sure that every politician affected by it will begin some sort of campaigning somewhere around the halfway mark, and real campaigning will begin months before the actual formal election. In the US, there isn’t even really a concept of a formal election campaign, because there’s no notion of parliamentary dissolution, so the whole thing basically goes on forever.

To my mind, the very worst part about perpetual electioneering isn’t even the ever growing amount of money needed to win, even just legislative victories, but rather that politicians spend a good deal of their term not really representing their constituents, but rather figuring out how to keep their jobs. It’s like having a job where every few years on a regular basis you will have to win an Iron Man Competition. Tell me, how much time are you going to spend doing your job, and how much time are you going to spend training?

Aaahhh…nail on the head…highlighted above. That’s why countries with Westminster systems of government can’t relate.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Pretty much.Anymore it seems like we’re are in a continual political cycle. Waaaaay to much

Agree it’s pretty much continual anymore. The current President didn’t even get a 1 night honeymoon with the opposition. The first night of the current President’s first inauguration, Paul Ryan and other Republicans were already holed up in DC plotting to oppose the newly elected President. And they’ve been at it ever since.

pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/