If I had to guess, I’d think it’s because the main two parties have a spot on the ballot that is going to be filled by SOMEONE, so it’s not exactly the same… They have time to replace a candidate, but it would be inconceivable to seek to REMOVE their spot from the ballot and forfeit the state. There’s a slot that is to be filled. In the case of a third party candidate it’s a full expunging of not just a person, but the whole party itself. I guess if he really wanted to, he could make the case that he should be able to remove his name and substitute another candidate, but that’s not the same thing.
It still sounds weird. Like how is it that in a country like the U.S. these parties can wait to choose who will be the leader of the fucking United States as far as only two months before an election? Like, should they not have planned that shit ahead of time? I know the U.S. is a shithole but it’s a shithole with a tonne of power and influence and that feels…wrong. A bit “fast and loose” with democracy, ya know?
I’m glad it meant the Dems could swap out Biden for someone with a pulse but fuck that’s weak.
I mean, the amount of time the US takes is an outlier. Most countries announce and have elections in a shorter time span than 2 months, and if it’s a proportional government, sometimes you don’t find out the leader until AFTER the election.
A lot of people would consider that good…not worse. Like the UK has a cap on the amount of money and time that some campaigns can be. That allows candidates who aren’t flooded with money to have more of a chance at actually being elected. It helps make the formation of a two party system run by the Koch brothers less likely…
As an American, that doesn’t sound worse. It sounds wonderful. A two month campaign means that we could focus on something else for the rest of many, if not most, years.
Also would make it just a tiny bit more difficult for big money to be able to influence the election as easily.
Hell, gimme a 1 month campaign season with two weeks of preview, for the candidates to declare their candidacy before the month of campaigns. I have enough time in 1 month to research the available candidates, make my decision, and mail my ballot back to Sacramento.
You understand that legally speaking in most countries the leader is chosen after the election? People dont vote for their favourite TV personality, they vote (in order of preference) for their local representative from a party they like.
Yes most of them will have a party leader but this not always the resulting national leader, eg prime minister, particularly if the parties choosing to form a government have some compromises to make.
If anything the US election campaign is ridiculously long and early.
If I had to guess, I’d think it’s because the main two parties have a spot on the ballot that is going to be filled by SOMEONE, so it’s not exactly the same… They have time to replace a candidate, but it would be inconceivable to seek to REMOVE their spot from the ballot and forfeit the state. There’s a slot that is to be filled. In the case of a third party candidate it’s a full expunging of not just a person, but the whole party itself. I guess if he really wanted to, he could make the case that he should be able to remove his name and substitute another candidate, but that’s not the same thing.
It still sounds weird. Like how is it that in a country like the U.S. these parties can wait to choose who will be the leader of the fucking United States as far as only two months before an election? Like, should they not have planned that shit ahead of time? I know the U.S. is a shithole but it’s a shithole with a tonne of power and influence and that feels…wrong. A bit “fast and loose” with democracy, ya know?
I’m glad it meant the Dems could swap out Biden for someone with a pulse but fuck that’s weak.
I mean, the amount of time the US takes is an outlier. Most countries announce and have elections in a shorter time span than 2 months, and if it’s a proportional government, sometimes you don’t find out the leader until AFTER the election.
Things being worse don’t make that good, though. Whatever, I’m not going to change world politics over here but I still think it’s all kinda fucked.
A lot of people would consider that good…not worse. Like the UK has a cap on the amount of money and time that some campaigns can be. That allows candidates who aren’t flooded with money to have more of a chance at actually being elected. It helps make the formation of a two party system run by the Koch brothers less likely…
Australia gives public funding to parties that can achieve a certain level of votes to encourage participation.
As an American, that doesn’t sound worse. It sounds wonderful. A two month campaign means that we could focus on something else for the rest of many, if not most, years.
Also would make it just a tiny bit more difficult for big money to be able to influence the election as easily.
Hell, gimme a 1 month campaign season with two weeks of preview, for the candidates to declare their candidacy before the month of campaigns. I have enough time in 1 month to research the available candidates, make my decision, and mail my ballot back to Sacramento.
You understand that legally speaking in most countries the leader is chosen after the election? People dont vote for their favourite TV personality, they vote (in order of preference) for their local representative from a party they like.
Yes most of them will have a party leader but this not always the resulting national leader, eg prime minister, particularly if the parties choosing to form a government have some compromises to make.
If anything the US election campaign is ridiculously long and early.