Before an election, instead of two years before an election.
Really, the election cycles are getting longer, and longer. As soon as one ends, another begins.
2007-07-08 13:28:49 · 11 answers · asked by Dina W 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
How about one month? That would be even better.
2007-07-08 13:31:11 · answer #1 · answered by MM 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Gee, why don't we outlaw campaigning altogether? In fact, if we just do away with this voting silliness, we'd have a much more orderly society. Yeah, that's it!
No, I don't agree at all. While I expect to get annoyed with them soon too, it's important to allow people to speak freely about political issues. I don't like a lot of the candidates either, but that just means it will take me more time to find one that I do support.
At this point, we're still early enough in the race that no one has it locked up yet. If we start a year out, or worse yet, a month out, then you might as well do away with campaigns altogether, because whoever starts out as the "front-runner" will win - guaranteed. People will be forced to vote on the basis of initial name recognition, because they won't have time to watch the candidates develop their following or build any alternate campaign to the ones currently in charge. That would be a terrible system, and would lock us in to more of the same. At least this way, we have a CHANCE to change things. Give us a little hope, anyway.
2007-07-09 08:34:00 · answer #2 · answered by skip742 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually no, because then the likes of Hillary Clinton will be harder to beat. America needs time to see through that liar for the "Manchurian Candidate" that she is.
2007-07-08 21:33:43 · answer #3 · answered by LaLyLoo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would be great if those who are campaigning would have to take an unpaid leave of absence from their others jobs, such as senator or governor, and would be disqualified from voting on issues , because it would be a sure thing they'd vote according to their campaign lie, (excuse me ))_ PROMISES!
2007-07-08 21:24:54 · answer #4 · answered by TedEx 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
read the stand by stephen king. even though the constitution limits terms to two for presidents when the characters talk about running the free zone they limit the new government to one year for all offices. making it one year would really help make it about service and not ego. it could work!
Vin
2007-07-08 20:33:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i would like to see that as well. to cut down on spending too. not to mention how bored i get of seeing these people for 2 years. i'd like to see the 1 year in conjunction with a cap on spending.
2007-07-08 20:36:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Its all so silly. And the sad thing is i havent seen any of them yet - be it Democrat or Republican who is qualified to scrub toilets - not to mention run a country.
2007-07-08 21:23:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
nope it would be nice if they could only campaign for one week
2007-07-08 20:31:40 · answer #8 · answered by plhudson01 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
one month.
In addition no news coverage or debates outside of that one month.
and no TV commercials at all
2007-07-08 20:35:00 · answer #9 · answered by I want a lawyer 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
One six year term would fix that.
2007-07-08 20:57:20 · answer #10 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋