Not to American lengths, though, one would hope.
This thread’s already gone on longer than a UK general election.
Political parties are more successful if they concentrate their campaign resources on one candidate. Primaries are the means for political parties to choose a candidate from all the party members who aspire to be the party’s candidate in the general election.
Probably not.
Take this year for example. Here are the Republican candidates that have announced this year:
[ul]
[li]Mitt Romney [/li][li]Newt Gingrich [/li][li]Fred Karger [/li][li]Kathyern Lane [/li][li]Andy Martin [/li][li]Jimmy McMillan [/li][li]Tom Miller [/li][li]Ron Paul [/li][li]Rick Santorum [/li][li]Matt Snyder [/li][li]Vern Wuensche [/li][li]Michele Bachmann [/li][li]Herman Cain [/li][li]Jon Huntsman [/li][li]Thad McCotter [/li][li]Tim Pawlenty [/li][li]Rick Perry[/li][/ul]
Here’s the Democratic Candidates
[ul]
[li]Barack Obama [/li][li]Randall Terry[/li][/ul]
Now, some of the Republican ones never stood a chance and many of them have already dropped out. But only because primaries and polling has shown them they needed to do so. So can you imagine walking into a booth in October with 17 candidates listed as a possible choice for President?
And none of those 17 candidates really, truly knows who will win. So the eventual winner has about 4 weeks to gear up into general election mode. Meanwhile, Obama has the Democratic nomination assured and is always in general election mode.
So that system won’t work.
I can see the logic behind that, but wouldn’t it be cheaper, easier, and more straightforward to have party members vote and decide the candidate, say, over a week or two? I’ve never understood the logic of having the voting open to non-party members, and the whole concept of ‘registering’ with a political party just seems odd!
I took a look at that law. While it does require a 2/3 vote of the House of Commons (and that’s the whole House, including vacant seats, and not just whoever happens to be in the chamber at the time), there’s nothing that prevents a government wanting an early election from simply voting to repeal the law.
(Also, what stops the government from simply voting no confidence in itself?)
As for how long a Presidential campaign really lasts in the USA, don’t be surprised to see potential 2016 candidates making appearances in Iowa and New Hampshire the day after the 2012 election.
This is true, although I think a government would need a fair bit of political capital to get away with such a move.
I wouldn’t mind seeing it repealed, myself. It’s wholly unnecessary.
Good question, and I guess nothing at all!
The fact that a vote of no confidence doesn’t force an election. The Head of State, as their first option, offers the prime ministership to whomever they think could can run the government either as majority or as next option minority.
(Plus the not inconsiderable burden of having to campaign in the election on the core proposition of their record of competence makes them the best option to govern, having just voted no confidence in themselves to do that job. )
There are two basic scenarios where a government (with a workable majority) goes to an early poll.
- Things are going very well.
- The opposition is in disarray.
If they are going well, handing the ball with attendant credit to the others side is just assinine.
If the opposition is in disarray and the government votes no confidence in itself, you’d probably need a civil war to restore sanity.
I really like this idea. Would you like to reform congressional terms too? I would like to see House terms extended to four years. As it is now, they seem to spend the bulk of their time either fundraising or campaigning.
There’s a section of the bill that stipulates that if the Queen cannot appoint a PM with the support of the Commons within (I think) two weeks of the last government falling, then the Queen can dissolve Parliament can call new elections.
Would be a messy two weeks of course, and that probably means it won’t be deliberately engineered.
I preferred the old flexibility, myself.
Oops, silly me - I meant Act, not Bill, of course.
So, have a three-round primary: First primary in June, every Dem/Pub in the country votes on the same day; top five or six finishers face off in runoff primary in July; top two finishers face off in August; Convention in September; October for campaigning; election in November. Wouldn’t that compressed time-frame suffice to cover everything that needs to be covered, expose all the candidates to public scrutiny, etc.? And then after the last primary, when the nominee is known, there’s still three months for general campaigning. Is three months not enough?
I agree. Congress critters are perpetual campaigners. I would let them be re-elected though.
I don’t think these people don’t exist (union membership in private industry is about 7% of the population, or 21m Americans), I just think they don’t command enough money. Anyone in the current climate needs to attract several million dollars for a presidential campaign, so they’ll hardly run on a platform that advocates campaign finance reform since it’ll alienate the people they’re seeking to attract.
I’m not seeing it. Strict federal guidelines on advertising and federal funding of any campaign with a minimum of votes on the other hand would solve the issue of campaign funding.
Electoral flexibility just introduces fiascos about essentially non-political principles. Whether Gordon Brown would call the election or not was not a policy matter, but it dominated his entire career as head of government. An entrenched constitution with fixed terms would be sufficient to resolve it to the non-issue it is.
Man, three months is a short campaign.
No. We elect in one day.
Campaigning on the other hand… 
With our current technology, why can’t we have a primary where we all vote on the same day?
I say it should be October 1st, then November election as usual.
Or this. I accept. Three months is enough. They’ve had four years of complaining to take some freaking notes about their most important issues.
A lot of the length of our elections is due to our public primary system. The general election hasn’t even started yet, after all. If the parties chose their candidates privately that alone would shorten the process considerably. Of course that leads to other problems. In any case I don’t see that shortening elections would alter the constant campaign oriented political environment. Politics immediately focuses on the next election the day after voting ends.
We spend way too much time, and ridiculously too much money to put someone in the White House.
Personally, I think we’d be just as well off if it were a lottery. Every eligible person’s name gets tossed into a hat, and a winner (or loser) is randomly chosen.
It is a lot of fun though, watching how elections can be purchased.
Relevant then still today!
We will spend 9 months selecting a candidate then electing a president and this time it will cost over a billion dollars in campaign money. Since the candidates run independent of the party even though selected in the convention they are not in any way beholding to the party platform making for a system of conflict even if the president of the same party that holds the congressional majority. The myth of separation of powers here is now more of a problem than a help.
In some parliamentary democracies elections are not allowed to take longer than six weeks. What a blessing that would be. A) This is the party platform we all pledge to support. B) Vote for your party candidate in your district and it is a vote for the announced party leader for President. C.) He or She pledges to support this agenda and is placed in office based on that support. (No different than the Electoral College). D.) The Opposition is also defined by their party platform and leadership. E.) Parties and Leaders are both held accountable to accomplishments and their agenda and they can’t just play the blame game as easily as they do in our present system.
Thus a parliamentary system with a larger more democratically elected base of representation would allow for shorter elections and a far more accountable government. Congress would have to be expanded to at least 1,000 members if not more though.
As one of those bloodsucking leeches that does campaign work, 3 months is a short time. It flies in an instant.