I can't see how it's a good thing that candidates are having to raise and spend so much money so far ahead of even the primary elections. I can't help thinking we will be left with only the best funded candidates rather than those who would be considered the best. Not to mention having to endure more than a year of all the campaign mudslinging and rhetoric.
I think I would prefer England's system where there is only 6 weeks or so between when elections are announced and voting takes place.
2007-07-16 00:48:27 · 10 answers · asked by Justin H 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No, I think it's good that people think ahead. It's not that early either, primaries are in early next year and the election is in a year and a few months.
2007-07-16 00:54:59 · answer #1 · answered by Jennifer 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think it's going to make much difference.
Over here in the UK we're pretty turned off by the whole political scene as well. It always seems to be more about who has the best spin rather than who has the best policies.
At the end of the day all the campaign rubbish is just that. They can't deliver on half the stuff they promise anyway.
I don't even bother voting anymore as I work indirectly for Local Government and have seen first hand how it works.
All the political leaders are just figure heads. The country is run by Civil Servants. The politicians make the promises to get elected and then the strategists tell them why what they've promised won't work and suggest that they continue doing what was already in place before.
2007-07-16 13:03:25 · answer #2 · answered by Louise H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, and that's part of the problem they have to raise so much money to keep their machines running that they have top end up selling out to anybody who comes along with some money to spend just to get a donation. The first thing we need to do about election reform is put limits on when campaigns can start.
2007-07-16 08:09:39 · answer #3 · answered by booboo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am turned off by presidential campaigns to begin with. I think they started deteriorating when we lost the emphasis on party assemblies and conventions and went to more emphasis on primaries where everyone could vote. This also gave us weaker candidates with less party loyalty and less responsibility to party platforms. As far as campaign finance is concerned, I am in favor of going to a system where "if you can vote for a candidate you can financially support him" This means that only individuals in a given district could contribute to campaigns. No unions, no PACs, no corporations, no party funds to individual campaigns, no out of state funds except for president, etc. I actively contribute to candidates of my choice that I can vote for. I do not send money to National committees because they can spend it on candidates I don't agree with.
2007-07-16 08:09:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. It's actually bad for Democracy. The earlier campaigns begin, the more money needed to survive unto the end. The more money need, the less likely less wealthy candidates will endure. Which isn't what Democracy is all about.
2007-07-16 09:07:23 · answer #5 · answered by howtruthhurts 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The NUTS are falling early this season.
I'd like it,if ,the election season started in Mid-July and ended in Nov. of the same year.
Political contributions would go to the PARTY,not candidates.
The parties would divide the money equally between the candidates.
Contributions could only be collected between April 15 and July first.
2007-07-16 08:48:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the elections are like Christmas... as they seem to start advertising for them sooner and sooner each time it comes around.
There are so many candidates my head spins when I think about the election and how far off it still is.
I think I'd prefer a 6-8 week period of campaigning before elections as well. Maybe the shortened time to get their name out there will make some candidates rethink about running, and we can start off with only 2 or 3 candidates total!
2007-07-16 07:54:34 · answer #7 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Every four year the major media outlets encourage the likely candidates to kick off their runs earlier and earlier, and this time it was before the incumbent term was even halfway over. I don't know why Jeb doesn't go ahead and formally announce is candidacy for the 2016 GOP nomination.
2007-07-16 07:54:42 · answer #8 · answered by Evita Rodham Clinton 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes..........this is all a nightmare of Hollywood proportions........hoop de da........empty promises by largely dishonest politicians.
2007-07-16 10:30:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because people are so sick of Bush that they're anxious to find his replacement.
2007-07-16 07:51:44 · answer #10 · answered by guess 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋