That’s probably because in parliamentary democracies in most cases you don’t know when the election is going to happen until it is called and THEN the short campaign season begins. United States has a much more orderly and fixed election schedule, and as a result it is, in fact, a very effective electoral strategy to start campaigning way in advance.
Now you’re shifting your argument, from non-existent legal restrictions on campaigning, to the structure of Parliament. I agree that it’s a structural difference, but it’s not tied to fixed elections. Many parliamentary systems have fixed election cycles, barring a government falling.
The reason we don’t have lengthy campaigns is that the campaign is fought in Parliament. Every day, the Prime Minister is fighting in the Commons to keep his job, and the Leader of the Opposition is doing everything he can in the Commons to show that he would be a better Prime Minister.
And, they’re all on the public salary, being paid to represent their constituents in Parliament. An MP, minister, PM or opposition leader who spent all his time on the road instead of being in the Commons would be in breach of the rules of the Commons, which requires good attendance, and would be opening himself to criticism from the press and political opponents about using his public salary to conduct a political campaign, instead of acting for his constituents.
Another structural difference is that the nomination of the party leaders is not done in the same year as the general election. Rather, the choice of party leader is usually made at least a year, if not more, before the general. We don’t have a lengthy primary process to squeeze in before the general election.
For instance, Ontario and Quebec both had provincial elections this past spring. In both cases, the leader of the defeated party announced his/her resignation as party leader on election night. The race is on right now in those parties to elect new leaders. That may take up to a year, which gives three years for the new Leader of the Opposition to get a seat in the Legislature and start showing why he/she should be Prime Minister in the next general election.
What percentage of parliamentary cycles go to full term in Canada? Roughly.
Depends if it’s a minority or not. Minority governments tend to last about two years. Majority governments normally go about four years. They can, constitutionally, go for give years, but four is the normal term.
True, I don’t like individuals buying Congressmen with the legalized bribery system we call “PACs” either. Thanks for pointing that out! (I’m SO ashamed!)
So your issue isn’t who has 1st amendment rights. You just don’t think political speech is protected if you paid a lot of money for it(such as buying a printing press, something the founders obviously never envisioned.).
I believe the Democratic party will not change until progressives force it to change. That is going to be hard, painful lesson the Democrats are going to have to learn, through losing elections since they choose not to learn any other way. I wish there were an easier way. But the DLC is hooked on that money, the only thing that will dissuade them from following Wall Street anywhere they want to go is by threatening the very foundations of their wealth and power, a threat that will only seem credible if some Democrats DO lose elections.
I’m really, really sorry the Democrats in Congress and the White House are such a bunch of greedy pigs and so very, very stupid. You’d think they’d have learned something from 2005, but apparently not. I’m reminded of a scene from the Simpsons. Police Chief Wiggum sits on the bed with his son Ralphie, who’s a bedwetter. Ralphie asks, “Daddy, these rubber pants are hot and uncomfortable. How long am I gonna have to wear them?” Chief Wiggum replies, “Until you learn, son. Until you learn.”
So, how long are the Democrats going to keep losing election because they ignored their progressive base and the progressives bolted for other parties? Until they learn, Firefly. Until they learn.
I’d say the first step is for progressives to actually persuade more of the public. Personally, I think the progressive base already is more represented in the Democratic Party than is justified by their numbers. The same could actually be said about the Tea Party these days as well. But I guess in both cases, the primary voters are more likely to be the die hards.
So take a tip from the Tea Party that defeat these Dems in primaries. That’s what Markos Moulitsas used to do. It’s how Lieberman got booted from the party.
The parties don’t look the same to me. If they did, I’d probably be trying to get the Republicans to be more progressive, not the Democrats. On ECONOMIC ISSUES they are very much the same. Really. Because they are both beholden to big PAC contributors.
I’ve been a loyal Democratic voter for most of my adult life. On economic issues, it has done zilch good. Nada. Zip. Nothing. Got it? The Democrats in Congress make a lot of noises about raising the minimum wage and regulating the banks and getting Wall Street in line with Main Street … but Somehow they never manage to accomplish anything. I no longer believe their mouth noises. They have lost all cred with me.
Are you referring to HSBC which got a slap on the wrist for laundering money for Al-Qaeda? Or Well Fargo, that got a slap on the wrist for laundering drug money for Mexican drug cartels? How many bankers have gone to jail in the US for their part in the 2007 crash? Hmmm?
The Tea Party’s tactics have been quite successful. It’s time progressives emulated them. Our PLATFORM is very different from the Tea Party’s … though at the grassroots level we both hate Wall Street. Of course, the Tea Party’s corporate masters won’t let the Tea Party go after Wall Street. But progressives don’t have that problem, as we do not have astroturf origins.
Bwuh? When did I say that?
Should read “learned something from 2000” of course. Typo.
Yes, progressives are working on persuading more of the public, mostly on the internet because mainstream media does not want to publicize progressive messages. Hell, even MSNBC, the closest thing MSM has to a lefty media outlet, tossed Cenk Uygar off the air despite strong ratings because he would not toe the line on not criticizing Obama. So it’s gonna be tough, especially without access to the big troughs of corporate money. But we’re working on it.
That should be: “They can, constitutionally, go for [del]give[/del] five years, but four is the normal term.”
Darn fat fingers and iPhone!
Lieberman didn’t get booted from the party, he left. Just like Zell Miller. When you support the other party’s candidate for President, you’ve left the party.
I’m referring to 2006, when he lost the Democratic primary and had to run as an independent.
He did *not *have to run at all. And, after he got re-elected, he might as well have joined the Republican caucus as well as do whatever else he did then.
He gave you ACA when he had the power to stop it.
He stopped the expansion of Medicare eligibility, aka even a modest start at a robust public option.
He did what his sponsors in the Hartford insurance industry wanted, greatly expanding their base of people paying in without costing them much, but not threatening them with a much-more-efficient government operation.
In military questions, he’s perhaps the worst chickenhawk the Senate has ever seen.
That’s not getting booted, any more than it is when Cantor lost his primary. He didn’t have to run as an independent – he could have supported the Democratic candidate.
He left the party as soon as he decided to oppose its nominee for Senate.
It all paid off for him in interview appearance fees from Fox, as their token “responsible Democrat”, even though he was neither. Whatever else he got paid by his insurance-business patrons for shaping ACA to their maximum benefit was just gravy.