I've never understood why the US Presidential elections are staged over such a long period. I've heard it said that Americans "run" for election and it takes two years, where the Brits "stand" for election and it takes two weeks.
I think the states should all have coincident party-primaries on Nov. 2, then on Nov 14, the general election decides. Jan 21, the candidate takes office. Much less money wasted, less damage to people's reputations from a long election and more focus on issues and less on personality in the contest.
Also, I understand that in a short election, incumbency could be a big advantage (it often is anyway). Because I think any person can be corrupted after a long term in office, I think we should take away the incumbent's right to run again. This way the election would be a truly clean-slate every time. Give them a five-year term--that ought to get it out of their system.
Does anyone reading know why we have a two-year-long election?
Tell me.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
It's very profitable for the communications media.
It is their government of the people/for the people thing which necessitates the long drawn out candidate selection process, where everybody gets their say.
Some other forms of democratic government have sort of "inside" candidate selection scheme, which are much shorter, and sometimes not entirely part of the greater election process.
Our election is so long because parties want to allow less popular candidates to get some publicity.
The actual campaigns are a lot longer than the official election period. This is because the candidates want to start as far in advance as possible. Early birds trying to catch the worm, so to speak.
Regardless of ANYONE's understanding of "why" it takes so long, the issue is that it does! Which, I fully agree, is absolutely ridiculous! We used to "run" for office, primarily so that the would-be president would have an opportunity to travel the states's citizens that would eventually vote to have the electors vote for him. Now, that reasoning is obsolete, with the likes of the Internet, the media, etc.
I LOVE your idea(s) with regard to this subject, this would probably open up the idea of non-partisan candidates ACTUALLY getting elected. Which leads me to this: do we really "need" the parties any more!? (My guess is no!) I mean, we can all pretty much pick out who the liberal is versus the conservative, and we all seem to know what itches our ears in terms of what we want to hear the would-be president say, think, do, etc. Personally, I'd LOVE to see some simple farmer from, say, Idaho become president for once.
Great idea!!!! (...but'll probably never happen as a result of it putting more of the will of the "We, the People" into the REAL solutions!) This country's body politic is not ready for what we "REALLY" need in order to execute the "REAL" change necessary: it's called a revolution!!!!!
If we actually chose STATESMEN and not politicians we'd be a LOT better off as a country. The two-year term for Representatives was pretty-much determined to keep the "representing house" (or lower house) in a "temporary" position capacity. It, however, devolved into what it is today: career politicians. Senators are granted six-year terms.
It has often been argued that it takes an elected politician at least six years just to figure out "how things work" in Washington, D.C. People like me would argue that it isn't actually "working" in the first place, all the more reason why I don't want to corrupt anyone into thinking like the politicans of yore. I'd LOVE some fresh blood in Washington, D.C. While I'm at it, I'd love to see any and all forms of corporate (or otherwise) pandering to politicians be illegal with capital punishment as the penalty! Absolutely no one nor any entity should be able to sway the vote of any bill within Congress. The first three words of our legal system's defining document are "We, the People..." - which is the entity for which the elected should be working... not the entity with the most re-election campaign dollars to sway any vote! Why this was tolerated in the first place is beyond me. This is called: Immoral of the highest order. To me, this should be enough for AT LEAST impeachment due to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" criteria spelled out within the Constitution, but we've tolerated it for so long it's become common place... which is ridiculous!
Washington, D.C. needs an enema... badly! (Not to mention all the states' capitals!) And this kind of forum is JUST the type of thing that is needed!!!!
I always vote against incumbents. Think about it. If we Americans voted for new ppl the majority of the time, don't you think they would try harder to make positive changes while in office..and thus earn the now few times we vote for incumbent?
IE: With the ax hanging above their head.. they are more inclined to make voters happy.
i would say its money. a relatively poor person would have no chance if they cant campaign all over the country for 2 years, they could hardly do it for 2 weeks. our freedom bought and sold