I mean, it seems like we’ve been living and breathing presidential-election politics since November at least . . . and it’s another seven months yet just to the Republican Convention.
Welcome to the 24-hour news cycle and big money in politics. It only gets worse from here.
Well, it’s probably the most important vote most citizens can make. And, after all, it only comes around every 4 years to elect the guy who will be the head of state for one of the most powerful countries on earth.
Could be worse…we could be having to have a civil war every time the king dies without an heir. Or we could be voting in a party and THEY get to select the schlub who runs the country and gets to decide when they want to call an election. 
-XT
But, it’s not a new thing. This is something I remember a polysci prof mentioning in college back in the 1980s – that foreigners believe America spends way too long electing a president.
Looking at it from here (Northern Europe), it feels like you guys have been having one long presidential election since 2000.
Yes, yes, a million times yes.
Yes.
(Is this a homework problem? Ridiculously easy questions do raise that suspicion.)
America spends a lot of time electing a president, because a lot of money and power is at stake. Whether it’s too much, I won’t say, but I don’t see a viable way for y’all to transition to a shorter electoral cycle without doing something ridiculous like fracturing into a bunch of smaller countries.
Define “once”—two years of every four is 50% of your life.
Personally, I’d say that if it really takes a person the better part of two years to decide which of the fairly small selection of presidential candidates is the best for the position, that’s a voter whose decision making doesn’t really inspire me with confidence.
I also suspect that about 80%+ of the voting public already know pretty much who they’re going to be voting for all the way through the campaign, and that the campaign itself basically consists of that 80% haranguing the other 20% to make up their mind on the “right side” for two years.
Where’d he say once?
Yes, the campaigns go on too long. Technically we haven’t moved to the actual act of selecting a President yet, they’re running to be the Republican nominee. Even then, the Republican party didn’t start its official process until the summer, and they had every reason to get started and take some news cycles from the sitting President. Considering that, I’m almost surprised they didn’t begin sometime in spring of 2009. I suppose you could confine the party processes to the year of the election by law.
However, the candidates started running long before that. Some started in spring of 2009, some of them started at birth. I don’t know how you’re going to effectively prohibit people from publicly saying “I’d like to be President” while riding around in a tour bus with the flag and constitution plastered on the side.
Naw, it’s only one day. Should actually be longer, imho.
Now campaigning, on the other hand… I still say no.
I believe the campaign seasons are way way way way too long.
A big issue for me is that the campaigning becomes the number one story, and every act of the sitting President is filtered through it. So, the President becomes less and less able to do the job he was hired to do, such as set bold agendas and push policies to fruition. The longer the campaigning, the longer the President is in 75% mode. I know every President would deny that this occurs but it really seems this way. The “lame duck” period, as it’s known.
As a Canadian who moved to America, I just shake my head and laugh. It is insane how long the process takes. The president is barely in office for a few months before they begin talking about the mid term elections. It seems as soon as mid terms are over the presidential hopefuls take over the news cycle - including endless speculation over whether so and so is going to even run or not.
Contrast that with Canada. Party leaders are decided over a weekend among a few thousand hard core party members that attend a convention. The federal election is not scheduled but can basically be called or sometimes forced, and then the whole thing is wrapped up from start to finish in 6 weeks.
I’m not saying this is ideal either - but at least it keeps the media chilled out from writing endless stories about whether the Sarah Palins are going to make a run for it.
Come on America. Elections never really end here.
Apparently, in a telepathic voice inside my head, where he whispered “only comes around once every four years…”
Honestly, if my reading comprehension is as bad in real life as it is on this board, I need professional help.
The argument in favor of long, complex, expensive campaigns is that it gives voters an idea of the managerial competence of a candidate. Personally I don’t buy it. Being the president is a unique position. I don’t feel any more comfortable with someone with managerial experience. It can help but it can also give false confidence which makes it harder to learn the job. In any case, long campaigns obscure what I consider to be the most important factor in elections: issues. With so much time the focus is on “the race” and not on what a vote for each candidate actually means.
It is rather absurd that a full presidential campaign lasts almost two years but I think a case can be made that a severe test of endurance and organizational skills is quite relevant to being a good President. Perhaps it makes it easier for a relative outsider like Obama to become President. Obama didn’t much have much experience in government but he ran a brilliant primary campaign which demonstrated organizational ability and political stamina. Without the gauntlet of a long primary campaign, parties would be reluctant to nominate inexperienced but talented politicians like Obama and the pool of potential Presidents would perhaps be poorer.
Pretty much how I feel, from a Canadian perspective.
Somehow, the process leading to the election of the most power man in the country has turned into a complete joke and circus sideshow. The whole thing - particularly the bald-face pandering to the extremes on both sides - is worthy of much eyebrow raising and mockery and it would be truly hilarious if we could be assured that the outcomes wouldn’t have any effect whatsoever on the rest of us outside the USA. It’s all just so…silly nowadays, and it’s hard to take any of it seriously.
“Pandering to the extremes on both sides”? What two sides?
I’d say so. Campaigns primarily serve the purpose of introducing competing viewpoints to the voters so they can make an informed decisions, and that process really does not have to take so long as it does in the US. It lasts longer than in any other established democracy, yet the product (the person elected) is not substantially better in any way. It might conceivably be worse since a lot of reasonable, smart people who might make for good decision makers would think twice before they put themselves through this grueling process. I don’t think a good campaigner makes a good president necessarily. It selects those who really want power, I guess, but not those who would be most suitable for wielding it.