The new and improved Elections 2012 thread

[rumborak]

Just noticed that it was one of the casualties.

Was just thinking, what's people's thought here on the length of the election cycle? That is, that the thing essentially drags on for months and months. While I can see it's a historical outcome from having to travel by horse or train across the US, these days it seems it just paralyzes the country and makes everybody really pissed off at being barraged with the same stuff over and over again.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Just noticed that it was one of the casualties.

There was a lot of good stuff in there, but...yeah.

Was just thinking, what's people's thought here on the length of the election cycle? That is, that the thing essentially drags on for months and months. While I can see it's a historical outcome from having to travel by horse or train across the US, these days it seems it just paralyzes the country and makes everybody really pissed off at being barraged with the same stuff over and over again.

I agree with you.  Not to mention it is a tremendous waste of financial resources when you have people campaigning that long.

[snapple]

Just noticed that it was one of the casualties.

Was just thinking, what's people's thought here on the length of the election cycle? That is, that the thing essentially drags on for months and months. While I can see it's a historical outcome from having to travel by horse or train across the US, these days it seems it just paralyzes the country and makes everybody really pissed off at being barraged with the same stuff over and over again.

rumborak

Well, historically you're right. However, if I'm not mistaken, the primary process has gotten to be a lot bigger. I couldn't give you a year, but I believe the parties would just go to convention and select a candidate on their own. It's been more recent (like within the last 30-40 years) that the primaries have been public voting. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought was the case.

[GuineaPig]

Just noticed that it was one of the casualties.

Was just thinking, what's people's thought here on the length of the election cycle? That is, that the thing essentially drags on for months and months. While I can see it's a historical outcome from having to travel by horse or train across the US, these days it seems it just paralyzes the country and makes everybody really pissed off at being barraged with the same stuff over and over again.

rumborak

It's faaaaar too long.  Though I think the U.S. should completely bin its current process.

[Adami]

I keep thinking elections should have happened already based on how long the campaigns are. I think each campaign should run 1 month and no more.

[snapple]

I keep thinking elections should have happened already based on how long the campaigns are. I think each campaign should run 1 month and no more.

They should have happened, but 1 month is far too short. A 3 month campaign would be better, and a week of debates right before the election.

[Adami]

I keep thinking elections should have happened already based on how long the campaigns are. I think each campaign should run 1 month and no more.

They should have happened, but 1 month is far too short. A 3 month campaign would be better, and a week of debates right before the election.

I think a month is fine. They don't need to go everywhere and pander. They need to make their points concise and well thought out and not remolding their campaigns every week based on what the other guy is doing. This isn't about winning, it's about electing the best guy for the job. I just want to know who he is and what he stands for and the less time he has to screw that up the better.

[snapple]

I keep thinking elections should have happened already based on how long the campaigns are. I think each campaign should run 1 month and no more.

They should have happened, but 1 month is far too short. A 3 month campaign would be better, and a week of debates right before the election.

I think a month is fine. They don't need to go everywhere and pander. They need to make their points concise and well thought out and not remolding their campaigns every week based on what the other guy is doing. This isn't about winning, it's about electing the best guy for the job. I just want to know who he is and what he stands for and the less time he has to screw that up the better.

Bold - it certainly is about winning (to them)

However, they do need to go to places and talk to voters. It would be hard to personalize your presidential plans in a national advertisement. How is what Romney/Obama planning to do going to affect Michigan? Why would they want to put that on national airwaves when they could just come to Michigan, do a couple rallies and say it there?

[Adami]

A month is fine for that. The presidents make all of their initial speeches. The people in each state express their concerns to their congressmen. Those people present those issues to the presidential candidate. He makes more statements about how to deal with them.

[snapple]

A month is fine for that. The presidents make all of their initial speeches. The people in each state express their concerns to their congressmen. Those people present those issues to the presidential candidate. He makes more statements about how to deal with them.

Well, I guess if it worked perfectly that would make sense. But seeing as the president signs legislation into law, and has the power to veto legislation, I'd like to know his/her thoughts on it, too.

[Dr. DTVT]

This isn't my idea, but I've heard people suggest limiting the presidency to one six or seven year term.  That's something I'd like to see.

[rumborak]

I've heard that suggestion, but what would that actually achieve? If it's already considered permissible with a 4-year period to waste everybody's time for a year, I would think a 6-year term would stretch that even further.

rumborak

[El Barto]

However, they do need to go to places and talk to voters. It would be hard to personalize your presidential plans in a national advertisement. How is what Romney/Obama planning to do going to affect Michigan? Why would they want to put that on national airwaves when they could just come to Michigan, do a couple rallies and say it there?

There's no personalization.  Those things are pep-rallies.  And even if there are a handful of undecideds that attend them, all they're hearing is pre-scripted talking points.  They're as phony as the debates have become. 

[Dr. DTVT]

The idea is that if you take running for re-election out of the equation, it would allow the POTUS to spend more time doing his job and he would be less likely to do things to appease the extreme factions of his party and allow them to make decisions with fewer groups hounding him.  I like the theory and it couldn't be much worse in practice than what we currently have.

[kirksnosehair]

Just noticed that it was one of the casualties.

Was just thinking, what's people's thought here on the length of the election cycle? That is, that the thing essentially drags on for months and months. While I can see it's a historical outcome from having to travel by horse or train across the US, these days it seems it just paralyzes the country and makes everybody really pissed off at being barraged with the same stuff over and over again.

rumborak

Well, historically you're right. However, if I'm not mistaken, the primary process has gotten to be a lot bigger. I couldn't give you a year, but I believe the parties would just go to convention and select a candidate on their own. It's been more recent (like within the last 30-40 years) that the primaries have been public voting. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought was the case.

Very good.  You're actually pretty close.

[snapple]

Just noticed that it was one of the casualties.

Was just thinking, what's people's thought here on the length of the election cycle? That is, that the thing essentially drags on for months and months. While I can see it's a historical outcome from having to travel by horse or train across the US, these days it seems it just paralyzes the country and makes everybody really pissed off at being barraged with the same stuff over and over again.

rumborak

Well, historically you're right. However, if I'm not mistaken, the primary process has gotten to be a lot bigger. I couldn't give you a year, but I believe the parties would just go to convention and select a candidate on their own. It's been more recent (like within the last 30-40 years) that the primaries have been public voting. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought was the case.

Very good.  You're actually pretty close.

For some reason, I couldn't be bothered to look up the date. I knew I was in the ballpark :

@Barto

I like that candidates feel a state is important enough for them to visit. I understand if you think it's phony, but it matters to a lot of people. However, I totally forgot they're basically pep rallies.