Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    30 Jul '16 15:07
    I think I speak for many here, conservative and liberal alike, who would like to see a much shorter political campaign season at both the national and state level. Perhaps we could hear from some of those in the legal field how we could make this happen. I am entering the advanced stages of political burnout.
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    30 Jul '16 15:53
    This has been suggested by many others before. I believe this is a bad idea, because if they were shorter, Trump would be president by now. It's only now that some conservatives are coming down off the high that Donald Trump gave them.
  3. 30 Jul '16 15:56
    Originally posted by mchill
    I think I speak for many here, conservative and liberal alike, who would like to see a much shorter political campaign season at both the national and state level. Perhaps we could hear from some of those in the legal field how we could make this happen. I am entering the advanced stages of political burnout.
    I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but it seems like a free speech issue.
  4. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    30 Jul '16 16:16
    In the UK general elections are over in about three weeks. However, a British general election is more directly comparable with elections to the House of Representatives. The Primeminister is not elected but appointed by the Queen, she could choose anyone she wanted, but they have to be able to survive confidence votes and so she invariably chooses the leader of the largest party who normally has an outright majority. This won't work in the US as your executive is elected separately from your legislature. Also there generally isn't an obvious candidate for both parties, when the incumbent President is seeking reelection there is, but his, or maybe soon her, opponent always needs to be selected by their parties. It's not clear that the system of having a shadow executive, which we have in the UK would work in the US. A more comparable system would be the French one and I think their presidential elections are over more quickly. So maybe taking a look at how they do it and seeing if it's suitable would make some sense.
  5. 30 Jul '16 18:48
    Originally posted by mchill
    I think I speak for many here, conservative and liberal alike, who would like to see a much shorter political campaign season at both the national and state level. Perhaps we could hear from some of those in the legal field how we could make this happen. I am entering the advanced stages of political burnout.
    yes. less time for circus.
  6. 30 Jul '16 18:49
    Originally posted by JS357
    I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but it seems like a free speech issue.
    free speech means free from retribution for said speech. doesn't say the news agencies have to provide a medium for it.
  7. 31 Jul '16 01:33 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by mchill
    I think I speak for many here, conservative and liberal alike, who would like to see a much shorter political campaign season at both the national and state level. Perhaps we could hear from some of those in the legal field how we could make this happen. I am entering the advanced stages of political burnout.
    Brought to you by Hillary Clinton!

    Problem is, it was not fast enough!

    There is a conundrum here. The populace has been conditioned to turn to government for their every need. Their hopes, their dreams, their very existence is dependent on the next election now. Specifically, it is the Presidential election only that is such a concern. Collectivists have so empowered the President, that virtually no one cares about voting EXCEPT for the President. That is why there is a much higher turn out when voting for a President than in other years. With the Executive Branch having so much power today people recognize that other elections really don't matter that much anymore.

    So I think you should amend your first post and point to the Presidential election only. Most people have no idea who is running for other positions in government anyway.
  8. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    31 Jul '16 09:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    Brought to you by Hillary Clinton!

    Problem is, it was not fast enough!

    There is a conundrum here. The populace has been conditioned to turn to government for their every need. Their hopes, their dreams, their very existence is dependent on the next election now. Specifically, it is the Presidential election only that is such a concern. Collectiv ...[text shortened]... lection only. Most people have no idea who is running for other positions in government anyway.
    This election year, more than any other, this is extraordinarily false.

    Bernie always pushed the down-ticket. He always said that he cannot do it alone; in order to meet all his goals, the down-ticket must also be voted and supported. The DNC seems to have picked up this realization, and I believe the RNC was already on board, saying that if the top of the ticket cannot be Republican, then the down-ticket better damn well be.

    I agree that in past years, many did not know or care who was on the down-ticket. But it's always been the least politically savvy with this view. The party faithfuls know that this year especially, the down-ticket has real value. Both parties need to guard against the typical shift in House and Senate power that typically comes two years in. This is how Newt Gingrich brought the Tea Party to prominence in 1994.
  9. 31 Jul '16 10:25
    Would there be any harm in a single, nationwide presidential primary, held by each party on the same day, say, about three months before the election?
  10. 31 Jul '16 11:19
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Would there be any harm in a single, nationwide presidential primary, held by each party on the same day, say, about three months before the election?
    The Founding Fathers would be horrified.
  11. 31 Jul '16 17:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by mchill
    I think I speak for many here, conservative and liberal alike, who would like to see a much shorter political campaign season at both the national and state level. Perhaps we could hear from some of those in the legal field how we could make this happen. I am entering the advanced stages of political burnout.
    Simple solution: Stop following campaign news all the time and take and interest in something else. Wait till a few days before the election, watch all the key debates on YouTube and make your decision on who to vote for.

    The media covers the campaign because people lap it up. If you want the media to stop dishing it out, you need to stop lapping it up.

    Oh, and give this forum a break because I think it will continue to be primarily about the US election for a while yet.

    I disagree that the political system should be changed because you experienced burnout. I think the big advantage of the current system is that it tests the candidates for burnout. If you can't make it through the campaigns you won't make a good president. Sadly, being able to make it through the campaigns doesn't guarantee you will make a good president.
  12. 31 Jul '16 19:02
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    free speech means free from retribution for said speech. doesn't say the news agencies have to provide a medium for it.
    No, you are right, but carrying paid-for political advertising is big business here. And news providers sell advertising too.