There are very few certainties in life, but there are some that we can certainly count on this January:
1) We're going to hear a lot of New Year's resolutions.
2) We're going to see a lot of people breaking their New Year's resolutions.
3) And number three, after a relatively peaceful holiday break, we are going to see the 2012 presidential campaign begin in earnest.
That means that before we even have a chance to exchange any ill-advised Christmas gifts, the unofficial race for president will begin in full force, a mere 671 days before the actual election.
There are a lot of things I'd like more of in my life -- more holiday vacation time being at the top of the list -- but more presidential campaigning? Not so much. Yet it seems with each passing election the campaigns get longer and longer, sort of like a bad recurring nightmare.
As I noted on yesterday's episode of "The Dylan Ratigan Show," I'm not the first person to express concern over the seemingly never-ending presidential campaign. In 1960 TIME Magazine published an article titled "Is the presidential campaign too long?" The approximate duration of campaigns around that time? Nine months. That's right, nine whole months or approximately half the time of the 2008 election, one of the longest in U.S. history.
Former Senator John Edwards was one of the first high-profile candidates to kick things off, officially throwing his hat in the ring on Dec. 28, 2006.
Eventual president Barack Obama wasn't far behind, announcing his plans to run on Jan. 16, 2007.
He was followed by eventual Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who announced on her website "I'm in" on Jan. 20 of that year, exactly two years before the inauguration of the 2008 winner.
In comparison, the GOP contenders appeared to be taking their time, with former Governor Mitt Romney announcing his bid on Feb. 13 of that year and Sen. John McCain confirming his intention to run during a Feb. 28 appearance on David Letterman.
This early bird timing was a far cry from previous elections. During the 1992 campaign, former President Bill Clinton declared his candidacy on Oct. 2, 1991, just thirteen months before his eventual win, while Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy on Nov. 13, 1979, just under a year before the 1980 election.
There is little proof that longer campaigns benefit candidates or voters. For instance, the last presidential election featured more debates than ever before, but how many of us actually watched more of them just because we had more to choose from? (Click here for a look at the Top 5 Presidential Debate Blunders.)
Maybe this is one issue where our country -- which I still consider the greatest in the world -- should consider taking a cue from our cousins across the pond. The duration of England's last round of elections? One month. That's right, one whole month. Four weeks for candidates to get their message out to voters, and that month included substantially fewer debates and television advertisements than we are bombarded with in this country. (Although that may have something to do with the country's restrictions on the influence of outside political groups in fundraising and political advertising, another area where we lag behind our allies.)
But then if that happened here, what would we in the media spend the next 671 days writing and talking about?
This post originally appeared on TheLoop21.com for which Goff is a Contributing Editor.
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
To which country(s) do/does your claim(s) (above) relate to?
This hits it on the head. Every American has been taught since before they could speak that America is the greatest country in the world. By definition, that means it's better than every other country. And by unavoidable conclusion, it is foolish and un-American to look at any other country for direction in government, law, policy, industry, economics, military, science, education, or any other sphere of human endeavor whatsoever.
Even a reasnable person like you, Keli, is forced to say that America is the best - even while you are looking at an obviously failed part of the electoral system. And yes, it is an obvious failure when you have two years of campaigning for a four-year term: even the winner will spend almost 50% of his time campaigning (NOT governing).
So, this moment of reason and of helpless acceptance in the face of what is stunningly obvious will pass; the part about how America is the greatest in every possible way will remain, and it will keep you safe from the prospect of ever learning from the mistakes and successes of others.
The rest of the world thinks it's Sarah Palin.
What about France or Germany - modern democracies that keep capitalism on a leash?
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php
If Britons knew when the election occurred they would be beginning to campaign earlier too.
Until we are willing to give Congress and the President flexible terms, we cannot apply the British lesson. So all the hand wringing about the length of election season in America is absolutely correct but pointing at the British experience as a remedy reveals a troubling lack of knowledge and perspective.
And even that was far too long. Because the voters already have the message. Which is, “I will tell you anything I need to, in order to secure powerâ€. Which is why the eventual outcome was a hung parliament. Even the illusionary (its a photographic representation) carrot of a referendum on the system itself, failed to fool. We know that its just something to hold over Nicks head, to keep him in line. If he refuses to pull Dave’s cart the coalition will collapse, and no reward. If he doesn’t overturn Dave’s wagon, the bait will always be kept just out of reach for the full term. Or else it will be neutered, to maintain the status quo.
“the country's restrictions on the influence of outside political groupsâ€
There were rules, that amongst other perversions, prohibited the purchasing of Peerages through funding political parties. So much for rules. So much for the pretence of democracy.
Once every candidate has an equal chance to be elected based on their platform we will have a government that is working for the people and nobody else. Then we will have a democracy again.
I would like to see voting made a right and responsibility. If you have a driver's license, you must vote. Period. That would take care of all of that talk the politico's are always blathering about..."what most Americans want." Hopefully, that would take care of all of the polls too. I am sick of hearing about the latest poll numbers. I have never been asked a serious question by any media types...most folks haven't. But looking at the polls, I have been assured that "most" people don't like the Health Care plan, or that 56% of Americans do. Well, which is it?
I'm just saying that if people actually voted because they had the responsibility to vote, we wouldn't need polls. Just sayin'......
I couldn't disagree more. One only has to look at the last presidential election to see that voters benefited greatly by the long campaign. Few voters knew much about Barack Obama, so the long process allowed for him to introduce himself to the public. Likewise, at the start of the presidential campaign, many people had a favorable opinion of John McCain. However, the long campaign exposed McCain for who he actually is rather than the maverick image the media had created. Lets also not forget that McCain selected Palin on August 29, 2008. Those additional months of campaigning were incredibly helpful for voters to gain an idea of what Palin was all about.
I agree that the campaign season in America is neverending. But I would argue that it's not the long process of campaigning that is the primary problem, rather much of the problem rests in the way that the media covers the campaigns. Instead of informing the voters about the many pressing issues and the proposed policies of each candidate, the media covers the campaigns like a horse race with meaningless poll numbers. Instead of informing and educating the public, the media all too often is reporting the daily minutiae of what beverage a candidate drank at a diner, and what it all means.
Still, as I said, it's important to note that even though Britain may appear to have one-month election campaigns, they typically don't nominate their party leaders one month before the election.
I'm sorry, but you have no control group to which to compare... EITHER to say a similar result would not have obtained there, OR to say Americans are better off with the result they got than the one they would have.
"But I would argue that it's not the long process of campaigninÂg that is the primary problem, rather much of the problem rests in the way that the media covers the campaigns."
Really, so the fact that a campaign for a four-year term of President takes two years - fully half the term period! - and costs a billion dollars, those aren't problems, but the media is? I admit that the media interest in preposterous crap like Joe the Plumber and anything you can put "-gate" after makes all Americans stupider, but better coverage would not fix the fact that any wannabe president has to spend half his job time and a billion dollars chasing his version of the American Dream.
And that system is broke.
The problem in the USA is that there is a huge campaign industry that fuels and profits from election campaigns. If campaigns were only 2months it would cost each candidate less money and less would be needed from campaign donors.
-Visit reps. offices, write letters & call them in the city continuously.
-Tell them where that wasted money should go.
-Join and contribute to the most progressive party.
-Circulate flyers, talk to people & get signatures for petitions.
-Generally be a pain in the *** to elected officials so they'll wish I've never been born.
15 yrs. ago either the fed. or prov. govt. called an unneeded election. I was called in a survey. Most of the people called said that another election was not needed and it was a waste of money.
Please provide some support for american exceptionalism, especially when the article here mentions, quite strongly, the deep systemic problems that the USA faces in even electing its representatives.
We are #1 in the percentage of our citizens who are incarcerated
We are #1 in defense spending
We are #1 in depression and anxiety (http://www.alternet.org/health/106830)
Uh, I'm sure there are others.
We are #1 in cost of healthcare
We are #1 in anxiety disorders (http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/the-u-s-ranks-1st-in-anxiety-disorders/)
We are #1 in women's giant slalom (http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/the-u-s-ranks-1st-in-womens-giant-slalom/)
We are #1 in energy imports
We are #1 in primate imports (that punchline almost writes itself)
We are #1 in explosives exports
U-S-A! U-S-A!
But best of all, elections are publicly financed, so they don't have huge amounts of special interest money influencing them. There are very, very strict regulations on corruption (many practices considered part of doing business in Washington would result in imprisonment for MPs in the U.K.), and the system is much more transparent.
What struck me most though was the quality of political journalism over there. Compared to ours, it is completely impartial, dispassionate and fact-based, and politicians aren't afraid to face tough questions (I LOVE Jeremy Paxman, and wish we had somebody of his caliber in this country. Our politicians wouldn't last 30 seconds).
When the election was over, it was wonderful to see the conservatives and liberals come together for the good of the nation. Hard to imagine that happening in the mud pit that we call a democracy.
Another example. The NHS is so ingrained in British society that it is embraced even by Conservatives, apart from some who are outside the mainstream of British politics. The idea of a U.S. style system would be abhorrent to most Brits (every time I've had this discussion with a Brit, they think I'm either exaggerating that Americans can be bankrupted through medical costs, or they think it's barbaric).
There is a general acceptance in British politics that the government has a significant role to play in providing social justice; the debate being over to what extent. While in this nation, the debate is whether the government should provide ANY.
As for your example about Northern Ireland, the same is true of our Senate, where each state has two Senators, so a voter in Wyoming has signficantly more influence than one in New York City.
Ms. Goff is right: 2 year campigns are horrendously wasteful, and you have something to learn from the British. The fact that you have learned a few things you don't like about them (e.g. irrelevant details like that their boundary system does not have the same obsession with population as the American system, which is notorious around the world for having gerrymandered districts) has nothing to do with whether you can learn from THIS THING. As if being better in some ways precludes being worse in others. Foolish.
As for the 'pracitcal problems' you point out, in addition to not being related to the main thesis at all, they are only 'problems' if you take as a given the far-right American perspective on the issues (e.g., you view public financing as an attack on speech, whereas I for example view it as enabling the speech of those who have democratic support but are not independently wealthy).
Your points are not well taken.
Maybe it could be pulled back to a year?