What did Democrats do wrong?

[mumblethrax]

How many can you name?

Off the top of my head, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, two of which hold blanket primaries.

The frequency has nothing to do with it. They were at that frequency for 200 years before the campaign got to be so long. That, and lots of parliamentary systems will end up with more frequent elections, if less predictable and don't end up with endless campaigns.

I wasn't asserting frequency of elections as a cause of long campaigns, but as an exacerbating factor. Members of the House wouldn't be in permanent campaign mode if they served four year terms.

ETA: you aren't wrong about nobody voting in the Midterms, on the other hand, they will have the advantage of handing the president's party their asses. I could see going to 4 years in the house but keep them staggered with the president.

I don't really consider that an advantage. It's just further evidence that our system of checks and balances doesn't actually work.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Lots of countries have democratic primaries, and they don't have ultra-long campaigns, so I don't think this is sufficient to explain why we have them in the US.

One obvious problem--our elections are too frequent. Move the house to 4-year terms, the senate to 8, eliminate midterms (which are sparsely attended anyway), and this problem is significantly ameliorated. But this would require a constitutional amendment, so the oceans will boil before this happens.

I think the cycle time is part of the problem, but I think the larger problem is the fundraising side of it. Just scrap it entirely, and create a general campaign fund. Anyone campaigning gets the exact same amount before primaries, and after primaries, each part gets a second fund amount, but always equal.

It would be nice if the time frames were limited. Say... anyone vying for a primary spot gets their campaign fund two months prior to the primary. Anyone running as the primary winner gets their funds two months prior to the elections. My opinion, of course, but if the time dedicated to talking about who's running was limited, people would probably pay more attention. As it stands, it's a never ending thing, and it's essentially just background ads. I don't think many people aside from some extremely dedicated partisans even pays attention to the campaigns.

 

[ahhell]

Off the top of my head, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, two of which hold blanket primaries.


I wasn't asserting frequency of elections as a cause of long campaigns, but as an exacerbating factor. Members of the House wouldn't be in permanent campaign mode if they served four year terms.


I don't really consider that an advantage. It's just further evidence that our system of checks and balances doesn't actually work.

I think this confirms my point that the US system is rather unique and silly. Primaries being clearly unusual and US party registration being essentially open to anyone with the parties having essentially no control over membership and very little control over who can run as a member in the parties. I think I'm still correct in the primary system being primarily responsible for much of what is wrong with US politics. The primaries, first past the post, and winner take all.

Short version I think getting rid of the primaries or going to jungle primaries would go a long way to solving some of our current issues. I used to prefer getting rid of them but these days, I think open but with the top three candidates going on to the general would be best.

 

[mumblethrax]

Short version I think getting rid of the primaries or going to jungle primaries would go a long way to solving some of our current issues. I used to prefer getting rid of them but these days, I think open but with the top three candidates going on to the general would be best.

I agree that jungle primaries would be preferable to eliminating primaries (there are too many districts that would be uncompetitive otherwise), but I guess I don't see how that would have any effect on the length of campaigns. Do representatives in states with jungle (or top-two) primaries campaign for less time than those without? A quick google suggests the opposite.

The length of our campaigns are probably down to a lot of factors, but fundamentally, I think the reason they're so long is that we've done nothing to stop them from getting so long.

 

[dirtywick]

i’d be curious to know if citizens united had any effect on campaign length

 

[Emily's Cat]

We all hate how the government works. We just don't agree on what is actually wrong with it. And we also don't understand what someone else thinks is wrong.

Truest statement of the thread.

 

[lobosrul5]

i’d be curious to know if citizens united had any effect on campaign length

I dont see how. The rules before it only prohibited ads within 60 days of the general election, or within 30 days of a primary. So it would've had no effect on our now seemingly endless election campaign cycle.

ETA: also it would not have ( I dont think) stopped people like Musk from throwing money in support of Ken Paxton... this is my first election since moving to Texas and holy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ christ, its nothing but Talarico smear ads on TV and radio.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

i’d be curious to know if citizens united had any effect on campaign length

Because funds used to be limited, there was a lot more time in which campaigns would test messages and ads before fully committing (or deciding not to).
Now, everything happens all at once right from the start everywhere.

So, yeah, it very much feels like the campaigns are longer.

Of course, the way US Politics works, campaigning never stops.

 

[dirtywick]

I dont see how. The rules before it only prohibited ads within 60 days of the general election, or within 30 days of a primary. So it would've had no effect on our now seemingly endless election campaign cycle.

ETA: also it would not have ( I dont think) stopped people like Musk from throwing money in support of Ken Paxton... this is my first election since moving to Texas and holy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ christ, its nothing but Talarico smear ads on TV and radio.

citizens united is what truly allowed such massive amounts of money in politics

 

[Norman Alexander]

Voluntary voting causes significant problems, but particularly for the Dems.

All US parties, not just Democrats, have to spend enormous amounts of time and treasure just getting citizens to turn up and vote. Or, in the case of the GOP, to prevent the opposition voters doing so. One way to do that is to smear their opponents so long and so hard that they look like a cross between Hitler, Covid and untreated sewage; so bad even their mothers would not turn up to vote for them. Another way is to physically prevent potential Dem voters voting, such as the ballot box faragoes, and mail-in voting attacks. The GOP have concentrated on both, and actually have no realistic policies to speak of besides Project 2025. Hence MAGA, a collection of noisy, jeering, bandwagon idjits who have no idea what the GOP policies actually are.

The obvious solution is to make voting compulsory. Then it becomes a duty for US citizens to cast a ballot. Which makes it effectively illegal to prevent citizens voting. So all these ballot box and mail-in limiting shenanigans become illegal, and citizens should be able to sue if they are disenfranchised in any way. And all they have to do to fulfill this duty is drop a ballot paper in a box, real or virtual. Nobody gets to see what is written on that paper - it could be nothing if you couldn't be arsed to like any candidate.

Further, since voters are required to vote, no effort or great gobs of money needs to be spent by parties to encourage or discourage voter participation. Instead, they will have to limit their soapboxing to their (lack of) policies and opposition smears in order to attract votes. And policies are something the Dems are actually rather better at than the GOP, whose prime go-to's are vacuous nonsense, name-calling and rank self-serving stupidity (aka. shooting themselves in both feet).

 

[ahhell]

i’d be curious to know if citizens united had any effect on campaign length

If it did it just slightly accelerated the existing trend.

 

[ahhell]

I agree that jungle primaries would be preferable to eliminating primaries (there are too many districts that would be uncompetitive otherwise), but I guess I don't see how that would have any effect on the length of campaigns. Do representatives in states with jungle (or top-two) primaries campaign for less time than those without? A quick google suggests the opposite.

The length of our campaigns are probably down to a lot of factors, but fundamentally, I think the reason they're so long is that we've done nothing to stop them from getting so long.

Jungle primaries probably wouldn't but getting rid of them would. Primaries existed prior to the 70s but that was when they became the primary method of the parties' choosing candidates and that's also when the campaigns started getting longer and longer. Prior to that, the conventions were actually where candidates were chosen. The primaries were mostly just validation that the potential candidates would actually convince people to vote for them.

Minor Trivia, until 2016 The Washington State Democratic party had both a primary and a caucus but he caucus was how the actually assigned their delegates. The primary was really just a straw poll. Bernie won the caucus in a landslide; that's the last time the Dems did that.

The US parties could spend their time trying to appeal to a broader base of voters and less time trying to get the voters who will only vote for them to show up. Which is what jungle primaries should do. I used to more opposed to mandatory voting, I'm still somewhat opposed because its mandatory. I'm convinced it wouldn't actually change anything so now I'm only somewhat opposed. It would not become a duty it would become a chore and you'd just have more low information voters voting. Which might change how the parties' campaign I suppose.

 

[Brainster]

i’d be curious to know if citizens united had any effect on campaign length

Early voting certainly has. You never used to see political ads in August.

 

[d4m10n]

citizens united is what truly allowed such massive amounts of money in politics

What Democrats did wrong was support the ACLU.

 

[Solitaire]

citizens united is what truly allowed such massive amounts of money in politics

Something dark and mysterious from Montana.

Transparent Election Initiative

The Montana Plan uses the State's authority to define what powers corporations get, effectively bypassing Citizens United by removing the power to spend before the question of rights even arises.

 

[Donal]

Ranked choice voting for general elections. It would do away with the primary system altogether.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ranked choice voting for general elections. It would do away with the primary system altogether.

Yup.

I'd go a step further and just get rid of parties, or at least remove party indicators on ballots.

 

[lobosrul5]

Yup.

I'd go a step further and just get rid of parties, or at least remove party indicators on ballots.

Sure lets just do away with our right to associate in groups we choose, and have the feds take over running elections.

How exactly would elections look if there were no political parties? Ranked choice election for President with thousands of candidates to choose from?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

odd that you are not complaining that Trump is using the Federal Government to take over running elections.

 

[ahhell]

odd that you are not complaining that Trump is using the Federal Government to take over running elections.

There's so much to be mad at trump for. This I don't think will be successful though, it's what he's going to do after the election that I'm more concerned about. He thinks there was cheating even in elections he won, what's going to happen when he has his ass handed to him and the Republicans in November. Moderately amusing that it will largely be his fault because he's trying to make the election about him.