• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why a four year election cycle?

Pardalis said:
A year to recover from the election process. Another year to make policy. A third year to run mid-term elections, and a fourth year to prepare for the next election.

So one year out of four to actually do something useful isn't bad.
Click to expand...
You're setting the standards quite low. It isn't if you come from the angle "politicians don't do anything useful anyhow" (I don't know if you do), but it is drastically low if you come from the angle that there should be an effective government all of the time.
 
Pardalis said:
A year to recover from the election process. Another year to make policy. A third year to run mid-term elections, and a fourth year to prepare for the next election.

So one year out of four to actually do something useful isn't bad.
Click to expand...

Midterm elections happen at the end of year 2, so it's: One year to make policy; second year for mid-term elections; third year to make more policy (or, in the present US case, try to undo what you did in the first year); fourth year for the next election. Of course, we don't really have two whole years of real policy-making out of four. We're lucky to get a few months of it at a time.
 
Pardalis said:
A year to recover from the election process.
Click to expand...
There's a couple months between the vote and the inauguration. I'm sure any healthy human being could find some time in there to take a nap or two.

Another year to make policy.
Click to expand...
Presumably, the candidate has been thinking deeply about policy for several years, before applying for the job. More than likely, he's been intimately involved in policy-making for several years already. Indeed, most of his policy proposals should be part of his campaign platform.

At the very least, he can probably work on his policy plans in between naps, after getting elected and before getting inaugurated.

A third year to run mid-term elections, and a fourth year to prepare for the next election.
Click to expand...
Let mid-term elections run themselves. He's President of the United States, not party chairman. I'm sure it's not too much to ask that Senators and Representatives run their own campaigns during the mid-terms.

And as the incumbent, his activities while in office pretty much are his campaign. Are you upset that Obama's recent SOTU speech was essentially a campaign speech? Or do you think it was also a good and relevant speech that raised important points and laid out the necessary vision for the nation's next two years?

So one year out of four to actually do something useful isn't bad.
Click to expand...
While I would have little problem with this, were it true, I think we both know that most presidents don't need a year-long vacation after their campaign, don't wait until their second year to start making policy, and don't spend their final year doing nothing but campaigning for reelection.
 
Praktik said:
I think the big problem is knowing when the next election is going to be for certain.

This is how you end up with year-long campaigns, which I don't think are conducive to getting the best policy since the demands of the campaign will result in pandering legislation and the shelving of difficult policy that may be too divisive even if its necessary. The year-long election demands many more millions, which in turn means much more time fundraising and whoring out.
Click to expand...

The problem with the US is the convention system for selecting the candidates. It allows any chancer to mount a campaign, and some of them are going to try to get a jump on the others.

Other countries (Italy, Botswana) the president is selected by the parliament - no public circus

Or France. there is a run-off election by all voters, so no advantage in campaigning for an back room deal advantage to knock your opponents out early

Or in the best system, the The Boss Head Of Government is the leader of the parliament/congress or whatever you call it, so has an actual job and can't go touring to "test the waters" "Listen to the voters". And actual overt campaigning is going to annoy the voters.
 
Noztradamus said:
The problem with the US is the convention system for selecting the candidates. It allows any chancer to mount a campaign, and some of them are going to try to get a jump on the others.
Click to expand...
That isn't a problem, it's a virtue, or more neutrally, a feature.
Other countries (Italy, Botswana) the president is selected by the parliament
Click to expand...
That is the elites and "in crowd" at work, and not for you. ;)
 
ddt said:
I think the British system where the governing party may determine the next election date pretty much at will is more the exception than the rule. In Holland, for instance, the Election Law specifies that the next election takes place at least 4, at most 5 years after the last, specifically in March (or May if there are also provincial or municipal elections). That leaves very little wiggle room, and what there is is only used to (not) sync it with holidays.
Click to expand...


It's not quite that arbitrary in the UK; they do have a maximum term, which is 5 years.

New Zealand has the same basic system as the UK, except that our maximum term is three years, which I believe is one of the shortest around the world. I'm only 29 and this year will be my fifth election.
 
gumboot said:
New Zealand has the same basic system as the UK, except that our maximum term is three years, which I believe is one of the shortest around the world. I'm only 29 and this year will be my fifth election.
Click to expand...

The Australian government has only a three year term. It should be four in my opinion.
 
lionking said:
The Australian government has only a three year term. It should be four in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's 6 for the Senate. If we had 4 year terms, based on our Constitution, it would require Sentate terms of 8 years, which is probably too long I think. But I agree that 4 years is a better idea otherwise.
 
gumboot said:
It's not quite that arbitrary in the UK; they do have a maximum term, which is 5 years.
Click to expand...
I am aware of that. But within that 5 year maximum term, the ruling party can pretty much choose any moment when they think is most favourable for them. The Dutch law fixes the election date within one month, and thus makes that kind of manipulation impossible.

gumboot said:
New Zealand has the same basic system as the UK, except that our maximum term is three years, which I believe is one of the shortest around the world. I'm only 29 and this year will be my fifth election.
Click to expand...
That's very short indeed. With such a short term, the government hardly gets the chance to show the results of their own policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom