Why does the US in specific have such drawn-out campaigns? Earlier this week, I saw a pundit commenting that 4 months before the election is too short notice to pick a new candidate. But there's countries in Europe that announce elections, pick candidates, do the campaigns, go to the pools, do the counts, and have the electees take office, all in less than 4 months (see e.g. Great Britain recently).
Because elections here aren't "announced". They're on a fixed 4-year schedule. Everyone knows they're coming, and if they start just a little sooner than the other guy this time, that may give them an advantage. Over time, it creeps earlier and earlier. Like retail stores putting out Christmas stuff in mid-october.
Obviously, in great Britain's recent election, nobody knew there was going to be an election until it was announced, so there was no way to jump the gun.
Plenty of countries have elections on a fixed cycle and an election date known years in advance, and they don't have these extremely long drawn-out campaigns. Also, in most countries candidates also don't spend a fucktillion dollars on campaigning – another thing that has gotten rather out of hand in the US.
And the mid-terms make it even worse. De-facto the US runs on a two-year election cycle. I suspect this is part of the reason why things are so screwed in the first place.
Most countries put legal limits on either campaign spending or campaign duration, or both. That prevents campaign lengths from spiraling out of control and forces campaigns to be a lot more focused (hopefully focused on substance).
The US is one of the earlier modern democracies and as a consequence there are lots of little implementation flaws. And any change is seen as blasphemy against the will of the founding fathers. Many other democracies either had more hindsight available when they wrote their constitution, or were more open to change
> And any change is seen as blasphemy against the will of the founding fathers.
Anyone who uses this reasoning (I understand you’re not doing so) should immediately be shut up by quoting the inscription on the southeast interior wall of the Jefferson Memorial:
> I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
That’s as clear as can be: to honour the founding fathers’ intention, laws must not remain static.
I'd say exactly your argument is why it's hard to make changes.
The US has this pretty weird civil religion where the constitution is the holy text and the people that wrote the constitution are prophets.
Most other countries don't have that. A lot of democracies don't even have constitutions (UK, for example). The US constitution is an interesting historical document, but it's just a collection of laws. There are a lot of things democracies have figured out since it was written. Amendments are basically impossible at this point because the canon is closed and American politics have evolved to make it structurally impossible.
It should be possible to argue that laws should be fluid without appealing to the prophets of the civil religion. You could, you know, just talk about why it's a good idea. Shouldn't that be more powerful than trying to guess what someone who lived multiple centuries ago would have thought about it?
Your comment is confusing. It seemed like you were going to offer a rebuttal but then didn’t say anything that disagrees with my point.
I’m not saying laws should evolve because a founding father said so. I’m saying that people who invoke the founding fathers’ will as a reason to not change laws should be corrected that a founding father specifically said that laws should be fluid.
Yes, invoking the founding fathers is a stupid argument. And in addition to being stupid it’s also wrong. Meaning there’s zero reason to ever use that argument and people who do can be contradicted by their own logic.
Thank you for clarifying. In that case, I’ll address what I think is the relevant section.
> It should be possible to argue that laws should be fluid without appealing to the prophets of the civil religion. You could, you know, just talk about why it's a good idea. Shouldn't that be more powerful than trying to guess what someone who lived multiple centuries ago would have thought about it?
Yes, you are absolutely right that it should be possible to argue in that way and discussing the merit of the idea should be more powerful than invoking a bunch of dead guys. But unfortunately it’s not. The people who shout about the founding fathers are not the ones you can convince with reason alone. You’re lucky if they pay attention to your whole argument. Invoking the founding fathers is an emotional argument disguising itself as a rational one.
Which is precisely why I’m interested in seeing what would be the reply to “but the founding fathers which you are invoking disagree with the point you’re making”. Though I have no illusions that would fix the issue, people are able contort to into extra planes of existence to not cede their point. Watch Jordan Klepper’s “Fingers the Pulse” segments for examples.
Also, notably, the US Supreme Court has ruled against virtually all attempts at campaign finance reform, with several notable recent cases, e.g., Citizens United.
> Also gives the people in power control and the ability to block out new messages. No sure it's fair or democratic.
With limited campaigns you usually run with people who are already known and have a long track record that's decently well known. The equivalent of running a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders. There shouldn't be much new stuff to drag up except their specific policies.
> Some countries give tax payer money based on how you did previously which greatly benefits the status quo
On the other hand if the state doesn't give parties money then the parties are just going to do whatever brings them the biggest donations, leading to a country run by the rich and the corporations. And you can't hand out money regardless of past performance since anyone can form a party at any time.
There is no winning solution here, but giving tax money to parties can be the smaller evil
This isn't an implementation flaw, this is (arguably) by design. You can't regulate campaign spending or duration without regulating political speech, which is a huge no-no under the 1st Amendment.
I don't actually agree with that argument, of course. SCOTUS has been perfectly willing to go along with "time and manner" regulations on political speech in the past and I don't see why "nobody can spend more than $X or campaign longer than Y days" is forbidden when "nobody can protest the G7 summit" is. The US's free speech extremism has, in practice, turned into a delegated right to censorship. And under current SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution, the government is equally powerless to stop both speech and private censorship.
The true answer, of course, is that Trump and the donor class have coopted SCOTUS into an instrument of centralized power. SCOTUS is the scorpion[0] that stung the Progressive frog. They make this shit up as they go - free speech for me, censorship for thee. Fortunately, SCOTUS's legitimacy is in the toilet, and that power base can be broken; but it requires Congress and the President act to defang SCOTUS in a way that does not merely shift power. It needs to be distributed again.
From your lips to God's ears. As a non-American very much staring at tea leaves, I do worry stuffing the supreme court, or removing some of its power is the kind of act that could provoke a complete breakdown in the political system. Republican refusal to participate in the legislature, outright political violence that sort of thing. It's essential to save the democratic process at this point - but perhaps it's naïve to think that ship hasn't sailed. Kind of astonishing to see recent supreme court decisions like Chevron and presumptive immunity, happening with only nominal opposition - rather than say riots in the streets. Seems there's little mandate for radical change, and a democratic victory may simply delay the inevitable.
FYI most americans don't care about any of this. I suspect you're getting your info from chronically online people and the articles they read.
That aside, if you're interested in US politics you might wanna look at the details of those decisions. Eg, read this section about the case that brought down Chevron deference. You'll see that pretty much any judge or jury would have sided with the plaintiffs: https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk...
I've read Trump vs US, including the dissent. It's frankly terrifying.
Americans not caring about these issues seems indicative of the media not being fit for purpose - rather than the issues not being existential. I'd argue that the less democratic things get, the more disengaged people tend to become about the details of political and legal decisions. Since they have less influence on them and are already suffering lacks lower down the pyramid of needs.
From Sotomayor's dissent
"Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as
bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the
President is now a king above the law. "
Yeah that's an unfortunate decision and that Sotomayor guy is a good writer, but the decision doesn't significantly affect people who live here and the dissent is not an accurate prediction of the impact. At the end of the day, congress has the power to impeach and elected law makers keep the president in check.
What do you think of the case that brought down Chevron deference? That should be a lot easier for you to analyze. Ie. "NOAA fucked around and found out"
And again you ignore the substance of my post. I don't know or care about the gender of the judges. I'll go ahead and leave this conversation. It's like talking to GPT-2
So, let me put it in terms people can understand: what is there to stop Biden from having the Secret Service black-bag Trump if Harris loses in November? Or stop Trump from black-bagging whoever beats the Republican that succeeds him in 2028? Or hell, what stops Biden from droning the SCOTUS justices that wrote the majority opinion right now?
According to the Supreme Court, the only appropriate venue for that question is a Congressional impeachment. The only time when it looked like a President was going to be impeached and convicted was Nixon. That's why he resigned. But I doubt that would happen today. In fact, you can blame Democrats for this: they didn't convict Clinton when he was trading sexual favors, even though that was absolutely something they should have[0]. And Republicans refused to convict Trump[1] for holding up Ukraine aid for political advantage or for inciting a riot in the Capitol building. It's like if you couldn't be convicted for beating and robbing someone because you refused to sign the guilty plea.
As for Chevron deference, let us keep in mind that the alternative to Chevron is legislating from the bench. SCOTUS consistently picks the interpretation of the Constitution that assigns the most power to the judicial branch, which they have absolute control over. The ostensible check on this power is Congress writing a new law, but Congress has been hung for over a decade, which means SCOTUS gets to cowboy-code whatever they want.
[0] During the Me Too era of sexual harassment revelations Democrats started realizing "oh wait, we did WHAT back then?!" and recanting
I'll answer the first part with a question: If Biden black-bags Trump, do you think he will be unpunished? If so, how much do you wanna bet? Same for those other hypotheticals.
> the alternative to Chevron is legislating from the bench
Only when a law is unclear. Interpreting thaw is kinda why these courts exist
> Plenty of countries[..] don't have these extremely long drawn-out campaigns. Also, in most countries candidates also don't spend a fucktillion dollars on campaigning – another thing that has gotten rather out of hand in the US.
Presumably you mean in Europe, but most countries around the world are parliamentary. They have no system of checks and balances due to legislative capture; the Executive really has no power and can be trivially forced to resign. There's no real point in running a huge campaign for a figurehead that doesn't have any real independence.
Plus, it would go without mentioning that the USA is the world's largest economy, so it's not surprising a lot of money would be diverted to elections with economic consequences.
As a counterpoint, Sweden has elections on a fixed schedule as well, and electioneering is still essentially contained to a month before the election proper.
> electioneering is still essentially contained to a month before the election proper.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the one-month limit is by law. Candidates are not allowed to campaign for longer than that. Just a little context I wanted to add for those that are unfamiliar.
You are wrong, there is no such law in Sweden. But the person you’re replying to isn’t really correct either. Electioneering ramps up slowly over the calendar year but since the election always is on the second Sunday in September there is a lull in July during vacations and then way more activity in August.
I forget which country but there is one that limits campaigning to a single month. It has been proposed as a way to remove money from influencing politics but hasn't really gotten much traction elsewhere.
Frankly the US just has a much larger area to campaign in than sweden. Candidates have to at least visit every state once and spend tons of time in 5-10
There's another significant difference in Sweden: the focus isn't on a single candidate but on the party, so different representatives can do the talking and there's no need for a single candidate to be everywhere.
Great Britain's election season is shorter compared to the US in part because they don't need to spend so much time choosing the candidates. Various prospective parliamentary candidates were already selected months before, and Keir Starmer was the Labour Party's "PM candidate" since all the way back in 2020! But since in the US the parties are so much larger and multidimensional (and internally democratic in terms of choosing the candidates), that takes up most of the time that we think of in a Presidential election.
That and the election for the President is functionally independent of the House and Senate elections because they’re serving terms and controlling Congress does not mean controlling the Presidency and vice versa. In the UK, y’all put the leader of the majority party (or the leader of the senior partner in a coalition) in Parliament as your Head of Government which is essentially a selection process which is an internal party affair; and your Head of State is of course the King. I think for most Parliamentary systems (with or without a Monarchy), the Prime Minister or equivalent thereof is chosen similarly.
The UK has a number of policies and traditions that reduce this tendency, in addition to snap elections.
Obviously in a sense politicians are always campaigning, in the sense that they're always looking to deliver on their election promises, raise their personal profile, announce popular policies, kiss babies and so on. But that's a constant background effort, rather than an election-specific effort.
Perhaps the most important factor is the campaign spending limit; a campaign might have £50,000 to spend in a constituency with 70,000 voters and when the money runs out, they can't legally spend any more. So any money you spend early is money you can't spend later.
Also a great deal of campaigning involves the candidate physically being in their constituency, not in Westminster. So to start campaigning early would involve a burdensome amount of travel, and much less free time to spend with family.
During the short campaign period, parliament is dissolved and public servants enter 'Purdah' [1] where no important policies can be announced. Candidates can spend all their time in their constituencies campaigning - but the government is basically in stasis.
I think the way we do ballot access also contributes to it. We give candidates backed by established political organizations preferential treatment (vs separating out qualifying for the ballot and support from the organization).
Tbh, I never understood why "support from the party" plays into it at all. If we truly want separation of powers shouldn't we encourage the leader of the executive to have no ties to any of the factions of the legislative. Instead it seems to be the opposite
> The fixed schedule is the case for most EU countries, in Belgium every 4 year we go out and vote.
I think you mean 5, not 4.
> The only possible way to vote earlier is when a government falls and they write out new elections but that is extremely rare.
It's not rare in many other EU countries - and even when there are no "snap" elections the there may be some flexibility about the timeline of the "standard" ones. I'm not sure that "fixed schedule is the case for most EU countries" is a good description, compared to the US where the exact date is known.
For practical purposes, in parliamentary democracies, the approximate date of the election is almost always known. Occasionally, they’ll go notably early, as with the recent UK one (they could have gone up to December) but it’s not really the norm (or certainly the out-of-the-blue nature of wasn’t), and it was still only five months.
The way primaries are explicitly drawn out across every state is a big factor. The earlier a given state runs its primary, the more influence that state has by setting the momentum.
The UK always has a Leader of the Opposition ready to make the case that they could be the next Prime Minister.
Technically we only vote for the representative in our local constituency, but who is going to end up PM is a big factor. We know what the options are before the election is announced: the current PM and the Leader of the Opposition (although in theory the leader of one of the smaller parties is also possible). Therefore no need for a primary process.
It's because America has three elections for President:
1. Republican primaries
2. Democratic primaries
3. General election
The drawn-out part is the primaries, part of which are parties trying to get their candidates in the news for a while. Once the parties officially pick a candidate — July this year for the Republicans, August for Democrats — the election proceeds on a pretty quick timetable.
The UK doesn't do primary elections to the same extent, nor do most parliamentary democracies. So they're faster, since there's just a general election.
The concern about Kamala's "short" time to make a case for electing her to the presidency is that she didn't get to make use of the ~year+ news cycles of the primaries, and will only have the general election to convince voters. (There's also a specter of it being "undemocratic" since party nominees are typically elected by the party's voters, rather than chosen by officials, but since she was Biden's VP in 2020, and he won the election, IMO this is overblown: the entire point of a VP is to take over if the president is unable to function, which is what happened in this case. Her claim to democratic election is that voters chose the Biden/Harris ticket in a general election, which is pretty reasonable.)
That's because everyone including Europeans spend plenty of their time watching the US election dramas so obviously it starts as early as possible because there's strong demand for it. It's a big business for everyone: the politicians, media, tech companies, the long line of hangers on, etc.
In Canada we know who the next 2 primary candidates were a year ago and elections not until next yr. That's almost always how it works, whether it's formalized or not.
Trump has really turned our system on its head. He's basically been campaigning since 2015 and never stopped. It's exhausting for everyone except, apparently, him.
Great Britain has a parliamentary system. In the US, the presidential election is drawn out but the campaigns for congress only heat up in the last months.
Why does the US in specific have such drawn-out campaigns? Earlier this week, I saw a pundit commenting that 4 months before the election is too short notice to pick a new candidate. But there's countries in Europe that announce elections, pick candidates, do the campaigns, go to the pools, do the counts, and have the electees take office, all in less than 4 months (see e.g. Great Britain recently).