As someone who lives next door to one of those insignificant urine stains (my state is a slightly significant urine stain) that’s exactly ther kind of attitude that’s going to end up with primaries being held 18 months before the election.
This is the only time in four years major national politicians can even remember that Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming even exist, let alone bother to visit. As crazy and flawed as it is, this system ensures some attention be paid to flyover states.
Actually, I agree with the rest of friedo’s points.
It’s worth noting, too, that there are quite a few Australians who would prefer that the federal elections be placed on a fixed, four-year term, rather than allowing the ruling party to call an election at an advantageous time.
Oh, certainly. It’s just that none of those include the people who could enact said change, the politicians involved, as they rather like the situation as is.
Whether we enjoy short election campaigns in Britain depends on your definition of “election campaign” (and “enjoy”, I suppose). It’s true that the formal campaign is short, but in reality we all know roughly when the election is likely to be, and the parties start positioning themselves, and the candidates grooming themselves, many months or even years in advance. It’s not that different from the US, really.
We tend to have 4-6 week campaigns here in NZ. The month-long ones at least get the whole thing over with. With our MMP system and all the power-jostling that entails, though, the cycle seems to last all the three years … sigh
This may be hard to believe, but the New Hampshire primary used to be held in March. The second Tuesday, IIRC.
I understand there is a movement to pass a federal law to create four regional primaries, held in March, April, May, and June with special dispensation for NH and IA to hold theirs earlier. Which region goes first will rotate among the four regions (North, Midwest, South and West). Not sure how this would be enforced, since the primaries are run by the states and the caucuses by the parties.
If he said it, he was talking out his ass. There’s no election per se, but a gathering of the party faithful to select delegates to the Iowa State Convention who, in turn, determine the delegates to the National convention of the two parties.
Wiki on the procedure. Note that the Dems and Pubs do not use exactly the same procedure, but in both cases, the delegates are proportional to the support received by the candidate in that county, not winner-take-all.
The caucuses are actually held every two years, but nobody outside the state pays any attention to the non-presidential year caucuses.
From the time someone can officially announce they are a candidate, be eligible for matching funds etc. No one can stop someone from making a political speech. If they are not an official candidate than no one will listen. Maybe some paper will mention that muttrox is making a speech at the Hyatt and appears to be positioning itself to become a candidate. No one will care. I am thinking of the absurdity of Fred Thompson entering the race many months before the first primary and the pundits saying he started too late. He still started many months before most potential voters even want to think of the next election. By the time Nov 08 rolls around most of the country will be sick of hearing from any candidate. One big reason for voter apathy and low turn out is because we are pounded on the head daily by the election for two years.
That would only affect the “official” campaign cycle, which as the OP noted just started this week. The parties can’t do anything to prevent candidates from announcing their intention to run or stop the media from covering them.
I could announce tomorrow for 2012. I would still need the parties cooperation at some point if I want to get elected. Independants will not win anytime soon. There can be laws which affect federal matching funds, campaign contributions etc. A campaign is a financial entity. If there are laws curtailing when you can set up a campaign fund it would cut down the length of the election process. There would still be “exploration” but that does not get the same coverage as a candidate. There are no debates between people who are exploring a possibility for a presidential run. There are no ads. There is no election. Push back the primaries. Push back the convention. Cut the purse strings. Compress the election cycle. It made sense to have a long election process when the candidates had to travel across this big country to get their message out. That is no longer the case.
It seems to me that the real difference between the American election cycle and, for instance, the British election cycle is the fact that essentially always any prospective leader of the country in the U.K. has to come from the House of Commons. There virtually isn’t any other path to becoming prime minister in the U.K. On the other hand, while prospective presidents in the U.S. often come from the Senate or the House of Representatives, they can also have been state governors or big city mayors. It’s even possible for them to have never held office before. This means that to become president in the U.S., it’s necessary to spend years making your name known to the voters. In the U.K., it’s only necessary to make yourself known to other members of your party in the House of Commons. Are there countries in which candidates for president (or whatever the office of the head of government is called) are not well known to the voters but the election cycle is short?