The US spends too much time on Elections

I came across an old (Feb. 2007) CNN article about a poll showing Giuliani neck and neck with McCain, and Hillary leading the Democrats. It got me to thinking..that was over a year and a half ago!

Which brings me to my point: I think that the political election system in the US needs an overhaul. We spend way too much time with primaries, caucuses, polls, debates, etc. By the time the election rolls around, most of us (at least me) are ready to burst from the constant news coverage of which candidate slipped a point in a poll and which candidate committed a minor blunder during a speech.

It's no wonder the candidates have to raise such huge amounts of money to get elected. Who benefits from all this?

Can't we wrap this entire thing up in six months or less?

Too much!

[edit on 23-9-2008 by jsobecky]

Too much time and too much money. Where do these millions materialize from.

And how many 'favors' will be owed?

Ditto. Too much time and way too much money.

How many millions are wasted on TV ads, while so many americans are struggling to afford a simple house, car, and putting their kids through a good education.

I'm not sure 6 months is sufficient but certainly 9-12 months should be doable.

I don't know how small you could contain this.

These people are applying for the most powerful job in the world. I think a little time spent getting to know them is warranted.

Time tables are not necessary. Everyone is obsessed with time tables these days.

Just go with it.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
I'm not sure 6 months is sufficient but certainly 9-12 months should be doable.

Easily doable. In Canada we're facing an election. From start to finish, 37 days.

Btw, all this money that is raised, where does it end up? In the hands of the media? That's scary.

reply to post by intrepid


I'd like to think that americans are using this time to really think deeply about the candidates/issues. As Nyk said, a little time to get to know these folks is a good thing.

Unfortunately, most people minds were already blue or red from the beginning. The swing voters will probably be on the fence right up until the general election, so there's no need to drag it out too long.

US population is nearly 10 times that of Canada so 37 x 10 = 370 days or approximately 1 year. The math is right but I'm not sure about the formula..

I think the system is more or less designed so that people will stop caring in the end. Its easier to fake some votes to make one candidate win a election if the people dont have the energy to protest anymore.

I dont trust anything in the US anymore... the courts, the police, the entire country is just a big fat embarrassment. You can bail yourself out of anything if you have money.

And poor people get thrown in jail for many years for smoking a joint. Sigh. All while your celebrities get away with anything or get a slap on the wrist. Nice system... not.

America is a corporation where people are valued based on their position in the system. Its not a society where everybody gets treated equally.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Copernicus]

I think you are right, it is played out too long. Coming from a conspiracy angle, I think it may be intended to exhaust the peoples interest in the whole event.

Elections are the only way to keep our representatives in line. When is a Senator, or Representative, most likely to vote the will of the people....1 month after an election or 1 month before?

If they know people are holding them responsible for their votes alot longer out, I don't see the harm in that.

reply to post by intrepid

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Scramjet76
I'm not sure 6 months is sufficient but certainly 9-12 months should be doable.

Easily doable. In Canada we're facing an election. From start to finish, 37 days.

Perfect example. It is doable; just look at the rest of the world.

reply to post by RRconservative

Originally posted by RRconservative
Elections are the only way to keep our representatives in line. When is a Senator, or Representative, most likely to vote the will of the people....1 month after an election or 1 month before?

If they know people are holding them responsible for their votes alot longer out, I don't see the harm in that.

Except they don't. What happened this summer when gas prices rose? They went on a 5 week vacation. And now, with the AIG bailout on the table, they want to go home to take care of their re-election campaigns.

They have their entire legislative career to be judged on; not only the 3 months before the election.

The President of the United States has alot more clout then either the Prime Minister of Canada, the Governor General of Canada or Queen Elizabeth II.

On top of that, the Canadian Prime Minister is not elected in the US style, instead he/she is chosen from the head of the ruling political party in the British style and then "confirmed" by the Governor General (who represents the British monarch).

[edit on 24-9-2008 by ChrisF231]

I think one thing that can be done is to shorten the primary cycle. We could have a "Primary Week" in which all primaries and caucuses could be held.

Or, do away with the primaries and caucuses entirely.