{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by lonepaul2441:
3/16/2013 8:05:50 PM
8
Should presidential elections be like electing a pope?
[quote]The papal elections took less than two days to elect a new leader for 1.2bn people. America, on the other hand, is still mired in a months-long process that only brings the country down.
Republicans are gathered near Washington for the 40th annual running of the bulls known as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This year, CPAC marks the unofficial beginning of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Sadly.
American campaigns have evolved, or devolved, into ultra-marathons far longer than in any other democracy in the world. [/quote]
Would the Americans on here agree the run up to the elections should be cheaper and shorter?
[quote]The last campaigns in the France and the UK took one month. Israel's last election began on 9 October, 2012 and the voting was held on 22 January. Canada's longest campaign ever lasted 74 days. The official American presidential campaign season lasts 10 months, from the New Hampshire primary in early January to the voting on the first Tuesday in November.[/quote]
-
1 Reply1. Political campaigns do not use tax payer money, so cost is of no consequence. 2. The shorter the campaign the shorter the amount of time the candidates have to get their messages out, therefore the voter is less informed, something which we don't need more of in the US. 3. The Pope is chosen by a small number of Cardinals and their personal opinions can take years to form, so in reality a new Pope's election is about as long as the last Pope was in power and the actual election is just trying to reach consensus. Campaigns should be shorter, 3-4 months at the absolute max, but really less than 2 months is a disservice to the voter.
