Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that about 99 percent of this forum has to do with American politics and elections.......
But I though I would throw this one out and see what folks think about having an election campaign , that is only 41 days long ? Here in Canada, by law, Provincial elections ( think US States ) are only 41 days,. from the start to voting day.
I live in Ontario ( population 13 million people ) and we will be voting on June the 12, to elect members of our Provincial Legislature. The party that wins the most seats, forms the next Government, and the leader of that part becomes the Premier( think State Governor ) and she /he appoints cabinet ministers, to run the various departments. By the way, here in Ontario we have four political parties, and our current female premier Kathleen Winne is a lesbian.
Federally, our national elections are just about as short, at 6 weeks from start to voting day. No party can run election ads, on any type of media, before the official start of the campaign.
A final point, in Canada, political donations to a party or a individual candidate, are limited by law, to five thousand dollars. In order to run for Federal Parliament, a potential candidate, needs about 50 thousand in their budget. In order to run for the leadership of one of the three mainstream national parties, the candidate needs less than a million dollars in their budget.
I'm not sure what being a lesbian has to do with anything, but I'd love to see shorter campaigns here, especially regarding TV advertising. If they want to campaign and blow their horns on a personal website, fine. I just won't go there.
I'd also like to see a complete stop to useless polls other than election day exit polling. No matter who you are or what your platform is, somewhere on the Wide World of Websters there will be a poll to support whatever nonsense you can come up with. Just stop it, already. It's a complete waste of time and bandwidth to drag that crap around to forums and blogs.
I wish we had shorter election cycles, I get tired of having these 2+ year long election seasons. A shorter election season would mean politicians could spend more time working and less time running for office...Though it seems like they often times struggle working when they have to.
I sometimes hear people complaining about how the system works in the United States, but this could never work here without an almost complete overhaul of our system of government.
The places that have time limits on election campaigns have parliamentary systems, and the time limit is an artifact of the fact that an election can be called virtually at any time. In the United States we have offices for fixed terms, and correspondingly fixed dates for elections. Everybody knows today when the next Presidential election will be held, and the next ten after that. As a consequence, there is no legal limit to when someone can start campaigning for a particular office, and little practical reason.
It would be possible to create severe limits on campaign donations, but it would involve overturning current notions of the Constitution, and what constitutes speech. Many observers have been critical of the line of cases that equates campaign spending with speech, but short of a constitutional amendment I don't see that changing.
I agree with what others are saying, just because the system works well in Canada, it is unlikely it would work here. What we do need is a shorter campaign and primary season, but not like Canada has.
Oh, and OP, I am not sure what the reference to someone being a lesbian has to do with anything? You asked us, if your system would work in America, that has nothing to do with someone's sexual orientation. In case you do not know, we have many homosexuals serving in various branches of our government. That still has nothing to do with how we run our election process.
Since Canadians vote for the party, not an individual from it, your system can be streamlined, Jim.
Much of your parties' time needed for electing it's leadership had been already done long before the election is called and the campaigns are begun.
I spent quite a lot of time in B.C. during the early 2000's, and I discovered that another reason why your system is able to conduct an election quickly may be partly due to how fast political parties are formed, come to power and disappear. Canadians have the ability to vote for a larger variety of political parties than here, which allows voters to more accurately align themselves with a party they approve of.
Here in the states, our constitution is strongly based on bicameralism, so forming a widely successful 3rd or 4th party is almost an impossibility. We also have many more states than your provinces, so a successful 3rd party regionally doesn't become as politically powerful as it would in Canada. Here, a 3rd party that develops much power always tends to drain votes from one of the two big ones, sometimes guaranteeing that the other party will win due to it's solidarity.
The biggest social difference I observed is Canadians are generally very aware of the daily goings-on in your parliament, due in part to the continual internal squabbles that go on inside your many parties. That is a rare phenomenon here.
The other thing that differs is how Canadian parties will often form coalitions between 2-3 smaller parties to rule the government. That never happens in the States. When a party's nominee for President is elected, his cabinet is formed after the election, and seldom has many appointees from the other party. This creates a situation that continues to enforce our bicameralism.
Since we have so many states, and each must have a primary election to vote it's party leaders, the national elections take a long time, even though Super Tuesday did eliminate some of the prolonged time. Not every state votes on Super Tuesday, and probably some never will, as there are advantages in some states to holding earlier or later national primaries.
Our elections always create more individual candidates than yours, and they all need time to jockey for their standings in the primaries, so our electioneering always was lengthier. These days, the electioneering begins the day after our congressional officials are sworn in, so they have become perpetual.
Our larger population also demands more time and money, especially in the most populated states. The more lightly populated states tend to settle things much more quickly, but between elections, our Representatives now spend more time in their home districts than ever before to stay visible to their voters. Lots of money is constantly needed for transportation and in efforts to stay an incumbent. Senators are less vulnerable, but they too now go home much more often than in the past.
The presidential elections demand both a lot of ground to cover and a lot of people to meet. Many times, it is one or the other here.
Canada has the same big territory, but it's population is more concentrated in relatively fewer places in the provinces.
Since Canadians vote for the party, not an individual from it, your system can be streamlined, Jim.
Much of your parties' time needed for electing it's leadership had been already done long before the election is called and the campaigns are begun.
I spent quite a lot of time in B.C. during the early 2000's, and I discovered that another reason why your system is able to conduct an election quickly may be partly due to how fast political parties are formed, come to power and disappear. Canadians have the ability to vote for a larger variety of political parties than here, which allows voters to more accurately align themselves with a party they approve of.
Here in the states, our constitution is strongly based on bicameralism, so forming a widely successful 3rd or 4th party is almost an impossibility. We also have many more states than your provinces, so a successful 3rd party regionally doesn't become as politically powerful as it would in Canada. Here, a 3rd party that develops much power always tends to drain votes from one of the two big ones, sometimes guaranteeing that the other party will win due to it's solidarity.
The biggest social difference I observed is Canadians are generally very aware of the daily goings-on in your parliament, due in part to the continual internal squabbles that go on inside your many parties. That is a rare phenomenon here.
The other thing that differs is how Canadian parties will often form coalitions between 2-3 smaller parties to rule the government. That never happens in the States. When a party's nominee for President is elected, his cabinet is formed after the election, and seldom has many appointees from the other party. This creates a situation that continues to enforce our bicameralism.
Since we have so many states, and each must have a primary election to vote it's party leaders, the national elections take a long time, even though Super Tuesday did eliminate some of the prolonged time. Not every state votes on Super Tuesday, and probably some never will, as there are advantages in some states to holding earlier or later national primaries.
Our elections always create more individual candidates than yours, and they all need time to jockey for their standings in the primaries, so our electioneering always was lengthier. These days, the electioneering begins the day after our congressional officials are sworn in, so they have become perpetual.
Our larger population also demands more time and money, especially in the most populated states. The more lightly populated states tend to settle things much more quickly, but between elections, our Representatives now spend more time in their home districts than ever before to stay visible to their voters. Lots of money is constantly needed for transportation and in efforts to stay an incumbent. Senators are less vulnerable, but they too now go home much more often than in the past.
The presidential elections demand both a lot of ground to cover and a lot of people to meet. Many times, it is one or the other here.
Canada has the same big territory, but it's population is more concentrated in relatively fewer places in the provinces.
The population issue has a lot to do with why many things that work in Canada are not as successful here.
The reason that I mentioned the fact that Kathleen Winne, our Provincial Premier is a lesbian is that I can't find any US State Governor , that is a woman, and who is also a openly gay woman. Am I wrong about that ?
The reason that I mentioned the fact that Kathleen Winne, our Provincial Premier is a lesbian is that I can't find any US State Governor , that is a woman, and who is also a openly gay woman. Am I wrong about that ?
Jim B.
Toronto.
As far as I know you are right, but that still has nothing to do with anything. Why bring gender or sexual orientation into the picture? What does this have to do with the way your country holds elections and the way ours does?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
