Why do US election campaigns take so fucking long?

[Darth Wong]

I was just reflecting on the fact that the Canadian federal election campaign took around a month from start to finish, and noting that the US election campaign seems to have been running since last year, and won't conclude until this November.

With all of the rules and regulations surrounding elections and campaigns and advertising and financing, wouldn't it be nice if somebody limited election campaigning to a fixed period before the election, so that you don't get these year-long campaigns? As far as I can tell, the government seems to spend half its term in one election campaign or another.

[Dalton]

Miniscule attention spans.

[Darth Wong]

Miniscule attention spans.

Ummm ... wouldn't that be even more reason to have a short election campaign?

[Joe]

What's wrong with longer elections? People complain about the public being uninformed about what exactly politicians are doing, and shortening the election year wouldn't do anything to solve that problem.

[Howedar]

I don't agree that the current system does anything to inform the public of the facts.

[Captain Cyran]

What's wrong with longer elections? People complain about the public being uninformed about what exactly politicians are doing, and shortening the election year wouldn't do anything to solve that problem.

Longer elections means more time where the politicians in congress and the presidency are garnering to what they percieve as the will of the people instead of doing what is right for the nation, this is especially bad in congress where most of their time in office is getting ready for being elected again. This also leads to the great stuff like pork barrel legislature, and piggiebacking bills. All in all it's fucked up like a 2 dollar whore.

[Stormbringer]

I was just reflecting on the fact that the Canadian federal election campaign took around a month from start to finish, and noting that the US election campaign seems to have been running since last year, and won't conclude until this November.

With all of the rules and regulations surrounding elections and campaigns and advertising and financing, wouldn't it be nice if somebody limited election campaigning to a fixed period before the election, so that you don't get these year-long campaigns? As far as I can tell, the government seems to spend half its term in one election campaign or another.

\

Part of that is the simple fact that this was such a hotly run race. Usually that much time and attention being spent on candidates so early on is unheard of.

Even so, a lot of the extra long presidential election cycle comes from the simple monolithic parties. It's in their best interests to be nearly perpetually challenging each other because America has regular elections and it's best to have their guy in the public eye as much as possible.

[Darth Wong]

To expand on Howedar's point, it can't possibly take a year to explain a party's platform. I see the protracted campaign as a gigantic waste of money, resources, and government effort. This uses up time when ideally, a government should be doing its job instead of trying to keep its job.

[tharkûn]

There are a couple of basic reasons.

First the primaries. Unlike most countries, basic American distrust of the government means that you cannot just run for a seat, you have to run for the right to appear on the ballet as backed by a specific party. So first and foremost you pretty much have to double the length of the election to have two votes.

However if that weren't enough said presidential primaries are staggered which spreads the election out longer and moves it forward. Places like New Hampshire and Iowa always want to hold the first primary and caucus respectively so in order to acheive that position, they keep moving them forward. Those at the end of the primary season tell themselves that their votes "don't count" so there is always pressure to move forward.

But it doesn't stop there, these days you need to hit the ground running with a complete campaign staff, organization, and warchest before the first primary. So this means potential candidates have to start organizing months ahead of time or watch the sheep effect toss them out of the race.

Once upon a time presidential elections were well timed so that everyone in the country would be familiar with the candidates, their positions, and contrasts with other candidates. Since then everything else built upon this never updated tradition to reverse the natural length of elections.

[Gil Hamilton]

What's wrong with longer elections? People complain about the public being uninformed about what exactly politicians are doing, and shortening the election year wouldn't do anything to solve that problem.

They could start the next election the minute a new president gets into office and four years later, the bulk of the people voting would still be uninformed. I'd wager you'd get the same amount of informed voters with a month long campaign and election than a eight month long campaign/election. The difference is that we don't have to put up with eight months of talking heads and bad TV ads.

[Stormbringer]

What's wrong with longer elections?

Because it makes money, and the consequent whoring out of candidates, far more factor than. Look at the absolute insanity of this years election budgets; you can't tell me requiring that much money is good for our democractic process. When you're forced to run for two years spending untold millions that really dampens the amount of people that can seriously participate.

And the simple fact is that when you're running a campaign you're not doing the job in the first place. Now do you really think that re-election doesn't win out?

[Elfdart]

It takes so long because a large part of American politics revolves around raising money. Candidates need as much time as possible to beg, borrow, or extort campaign contributions. TV and radio ads have to compete with corporate ads for beer, toothpaste, etc, so they're expensive and that money has to come from somewhere...

[Stormbringer]

What's wrong with longer elections? People complain about the public being uninformed about what exactly politicians are doing, and shortening the election year wouldn't do anything to solve that problem.

They could start the next election the minute a new president gets into office and four years later, the bulk of the people voting would still be uninformed.

The big problem with democracy. You can't force people to learn but they still can vote. The problem is some people just don't make the most of democracy. One reason we've had so many lousy presidents.

I'd wager you'd get the same amount of informed voters with a month long campaign and election than a eight month long campaign/election. The difference is that we don't have to put up with eight months of talking heads and bad TV ads.

I don't know about a month, some things do require time and effort to dig into. Two months or so is far more ideal.

[The Kernel]

To expand on Howedar's point, it can't possibly take a year to explain a party's platform. I see the protracted campaign as a gigantic waste of money, resources, and government effort. This uses up time when ideally, a government should be doing its job instead of trying to keep its job.

You think that's bad? Members of Congress have to spend all their time in office raising money for their campaign or else they don't get reelected.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

To expand on Howedar's point, it can't possibly take a year to explain a party's platform. I see the protracted campaign as a gigantic waste of money, resources, and government effort. This uses up time when ideally, a government should be doing its job instead of trying to keep its job.

You obviously don't understand the United States. The Country is, in most instances, better off when the government isn't passing any new laws (aka fucking thing up even further). Why do you think most Americans are happy when they hear that congress has gone on vacation?

[Sea Skimmer]

Pervious "reform" concerning campaigning is part of the problem. The limits on how much people can donate individually and how much can be spent after a candidate is nominated for example have caused fund raisers to be begun earlier and earlier every year since they need to get even more people to give, and the process of spending that money begins earlier as well to attract yet more money.

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, I think all political television ads should be banned, flat out. They do not illuminate the issue; they are mere propaganda. A political campaign should centre around articles written in newspapers and live debates between the candidates, not warring TV attack ads. People not intelligent enough to read newspapers instead of incidentally catching a TV ad while watching "American Idol" shouldn't be voting anyway.

[Uraniun235]

That's a really thorny issue; okay, so Kerry/Bush can't sponsor or put up their own political ad against the other guy, but you're going to extend that ban to everyone? I would no longer be allowed to go on the air and say that Bush's policies have negatively affected the nation, or that Kerry's plans won't bring the changes we need?

I can see how a one-minute blurb is no place to expound on such matters, but would this ban extend to a full-on 30-minute paid programming slot on a local TV station or cable channel?

[Darth Wong]

That's a really thorny issue; okay, so Kerry/Bush can't sponsor or put up their own political ad against the other guy, but you're going to extend that ban to everyone? I would no longer be allowed to go on the air and say that Bush's policies have negatively affected the nation, or that Kerry's plans won't bring the changes we need?

Correct. For those who can read, there are newspapers and magazines. For those who can't or won't read things instead of watching them during advertising spaces on "Survivor" or reruns of "Friends", they should do us a favour and not bother contributing their vacuous opinions in the voting process.

I can see how a one-minute blurb is no place to expound on such matters, but would this ban extend to a full-on 30-minute paid programming slot on a local TV station or cable channel?

Can you give me a good reason why not? It's clear that the process is not made more democratic by the use of expensive television ads as a primary marketing mechanism, and freedom of expression does not preclude regulation of the time, place, and manner of expression.

[The Kernel]

To be honest, I think all political television ads should be banned, flat out. They do not illuminate the issue; they are mere propaganda. A political campaign should centre around articles written in newspapers and live debates between the candidates, not warring TV attack ads. People not intelligent enough to read newspapers instead of incidentally catching a TV ad while watching "American Idol" shouldn't be voting anyway.

Politically impossible to pass and enforce such a ban. The best thing we can do is to eliminate ad spending by PAC's and other third parties so that all campaign ads would have to be official from the various camps. This would raise the standards of the ads (since the speaker would be responsible for the message) but it still isn't a complete solution to the problem.

Quite honestly, if Americans want to stop this sort of advertising, then they need to stop being influenced by it. Campaigns are almost entirely driven by polling and the bean counters in the various camps design their ads around what sways the most voters. It's our own damn fault for being stupid enough to listen to that shit.

[Uraniun235]

Can you give me a good reason why not? It's clear that the process is not made more democratic by the use of expensive television ads as a primary marketing mechanism, and freedom of expression does not preclude regulation of the time, place, and manner of expression.

But I want to brainwash America with propaganda!

I can't come up with a good reason. In fact, as I think about it more, I imagine all that TV spots probably do is galvanize people into their positions, whereas without them they might be more receptive to an actual discussion of the issues.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

To be honest, I think all political television ads should be banned, flat out. They do not illuminate the issue; they are mere propaganda. A political campaign should centre around articles written in newspapers and live debates between the candidates, not warring TV attack ads. People not intelligent enough to read newspapers instead of incidentally catching a TV ad while watching "American Idol" shouldn't be voting anyway.

Ideally that might be what should be, but it isn't because politicians want you to be sheep, and propaganda is the best way to persuade a mass-audience. Newspapers aren't reliable either, although they are better than TV many times.

Propaganda is a major polotical tool, and since it isn't illegal, that is why it is used. There are debates and serious informative programs. If people wish to watch/listen to them, they can, can't they? Who is really persuaded by television ads that air back to back and say the exact opposite of one another? No one can be that stupid. That's like trusting the pepsi challenge commercials for advice.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

o expand on Howedar's point, it can't possibly take a year to explain a party's platform. I see the protracted campaign as a gigantic waste of money, resources, and government effort. This uses up time when ideally, a government should be doing its job instead of trying to keep its job.

Maybe many people get a kick out of being involved in mud-slinging for a longer period of time. It might appeal to their emotions and desires for competition or something.

[Gil Hamilton]

The problem is, Mike, that banning political campaign ads is kind of has First Amendment issues. I'd love to ban political ads, and I mean love to, but I'm certain that any law banning promoting onesself on TV would violate Freedom of Speech.

...of course, all the fucking Decency Laws where you can't flash a nipple or swear without massive fines also violate Freedom of Speech, so I suppose the above is fair too.

[The Wookiee]

Miniscule attention spans.

Ummm ... wouldn't that be even more reason to have a short election campaign?

Well, not necessarily, I don't think. I do believe that the election system takes altogether too long, what with having to campaign and win votes in all fifty states, but people forget easily so they have to be constantly reminded. At least, that's my guess, I could be wrong.