Comments in a nearby thread have revealed why America needs such a long campaign season:
It’s to give Republicans time to change their positions without voters noticing. For example, Romney has to pretend to be a right-wing lunatic to have any chance of winning the GOP nomination, but then needs to give “independent” voters enough time to forget his primary-season stances as he moves toward a saner centrist position.
Just by way of a datapoint, in 2000, Canada and the US both had a federal election.
The US federal election started, I dunno - when the candidates were formally nominated in the summer at the party conventions? and votes were cast on November 7, 2000. (I seem to recall that vote counting took a bit longer, but we won’t get into that … 
)
The Canadian federal election started on October 22, 2000 and ended on November 27, 2000.
Every 4 years, it’s the same, odd situation: The intractable partisans, who’ve always known who they’re voting for, are the only ones who follow presidential politics from the get go. The undecided fence sitters only start paying attention in early/mid-Autumn.
But the “Etch-A-Sketch” meme, just by virtue of having become one, will make that more difficult. Especially as it will give the Obama campaign a hook for contrasting Romney’s primary-campaign positions/statements/soundbites with his general-campaign positions/etc. (if they conflict embarrassingly on any point) – play two clips, then the “Etch-A-Sketch” comment, then ask the voters, "Is that really you?" Or make Romney himself the Etch-A-Sketch, writing things and erasing them, to illustrate his flip-flopping, etc.
Hard to believe we’re still 2+ months away from the nominating conventions, ain’t it?
American presidential campaigns are too long and too expensive. The need to campaign and raise campaign funds distracts American presidents, and indeed all American elected officials from governing. I prefer the British parliamentary system. Campaigns in the UK are short and inexpensive.
The British parliamentary system is probably superior because the elections aren’t scheduled the same predictable way. A government can go down in a day.
I think the Yankee Framers made impeachment too much of a rigmarole because they were working off a strong king model instead of a strong prime minister model.
We spend too long picking candidates. If the opposition party wants to spend 2 years picking a nominee, they should of course do so. I just wish the President would ignore them until they actually pick one.
Takes me about 45 minutes every four years to vote for a president, including travel and wait time. All the other shit is optional. I don’t watch much broadcast news anymore, so I’m not bothered that other news is being crowded out. Besides, the stuff they would air instead would be more “white teenage girl gets kidnapped” and “Lindsay Lohan in rehab again” stories. I can find the news of interest to me on the Web.
So, no. There’s plenty of other stuff for me to do, watch, read and listen to while I wait for the whole thing to get finished.
What takes too long? Life, man, fuckin’ life.
Once the candidates are selected I’d say no, but the primary process was very long.
Plenty of debates in the primaries, but I’ve heard nothing about Romney/Obama debates, will that happen? I really couldn’t care less about all the fundraising, baby kissing, and speeches. I also think they should have to fill out a form with all their opinions, maybe with a few essay questions.
I prefer regularly scheduled elections. The idea that a party can call for an election at a time of its choosing doesn’t sound kosher to me.
And the long campaign doesn’t bother me a bit. Longer vetting process, plenty of time to address all the issues, with time left over to address the trivial bogus issues too.
God help us if we need a recount though!
To pick the nominees. It’s considered a more democratic way than caucuses or conventions.
Yeah, a national recount would be a fiasco.
I propose that if an election is close and we don’t have the electoral college, that we have some other means of deciding the winner than a recount. These options could apply as alternatives to recounts when a national election is closer than a 0.5% margin:
Tie goes to challenging party. If any incumbent party can’t win clear majority support, it shouldn’t continue in power.
The incoming Congress picks the President.
Run-off 30 days later between top 2 candidates only. In a situation where a recount is necessary, neither candidate will have a majority. In addition, voting problems that came up in the election would be hopefully corrected for the revote. A revote would have solved the 2000 election handily. No Nader, no Buchanan to confuse elderly Palm Beach voters, Gore wins.
I also wonder if instead of a primary campaign we couldn’t just do what Louisiana did up until recently: just throw all the candidates onto one ballot in June, top 2, even if of the same party, compete in November. In most years that would produce a Democrat vs. a Republican, but in 2008 it could very well have resulted in Clinton vs. Obama in the general.
1992 would have been REALLY interesting under such a system, because Perot was 1st or 2nd in polls and Clinton was 3rd in June 1992. So you figure Perot and Bush are on the general election ballot in November.
You don’t see a problem with having a president selected by Congress when the legitimacy of the election that decided who a third of the people in Congress would be is in question?
I know, that’s a horrible sentence, but I couldn’t think of a better arrangement.
But then you’ll need a recount to determine whether it’s at 0.5% or not.
Why would the Congressional elections be in question?
Nah, the rule would be that if the first count is within 0.5%, it’s close enough to trigger whatever tiebreaker procedure is decided upon.
It could be tighter, 0.3%.
If the national recount were predicate on electoral fraud, then as the same establishment provided for the election of Congress, suspicion would be thrown on Congress as much as the president.
I know - but what if someone challenges whether it is really at 0.5% or not?
Not electoral fraud, we just assume that if the election is close then things other than the will of the people decide who technically is ahead: mistakes are more of an issue than fraud, and they may very well already account for 1% of the vote. I wish a study would be done on this, because I find the whole concept of recounts in close races to just be a sham. Might as well just flip a coin. The recounts always uncover massive stupidity and end up being a farce. And no one is satisfied.
The rule would have to be that the initial count is the legitimate count. If they later find some ballots and that pushes it to 0.6%, the election is still too close to call, that doesn’t suddenly make the guy 0.6% ahead clearly the winner.
Or whatever the threshold is for recounts in most states, I don’t want to imply that 0.5% is some kind of hard figure. Whatever would normally trigger a recount, we should do something else.