Presidential campaign exhausting, needs change

[bwpdaddy id=’6680723′]

With the conclusion of another presidential election on Tuesday night, we at The Advocate are experiencing something akin to an electoral hangover.

The American presidential election is one of the longest and most expensive elections in the world. The United Kingdom (U.K.), as our most closely related Western country, would serve as an easily relatable example to contrast its rather shorter and cheaper elections to ours.

First off, the U.K. holds elections, called General Elections, every five years to elect a new body of Members of Parliament (MPs) to the House of Commons, which is analogous to our House of Representatives. There are two provisions that allow for General Elections: if a motion of no confidence is called by Her Majesty’s Government (which includes the House of Lords) and passed with a simple majority that lasts for 14 days without a new government being voted in, or if a motion for General Election is agreed upon by two-thirds of the total seats in the House of Commons. This not only sets a firm timeline for elections, but also the provisions to change them as the government or people see fit, whereas in the U.S. we have set election timetables for representatives, senators and the president unless there are vacancies on a scale that require a special election.

The U.K. General Elections are also relatively brief. The Queen dissolves the Parliament in mid-April and the populace has about a week to register to vote. The people vote by the first week in May, with the new MPs returning to Parliament in mid-May. For those keeping tally on your fingers, that’s about four weeks.

In contrast, the U.S. presidential elections for this year began in January 2011 and concluded just two days ago. A finger tally shows 22 months. This begs the question: How can an incumbent effectively get through his or her campaign goals when they end up spending just shy of half their term campaigning for re-election?

The Advocate would like to humbly offer up a solution: a single six-year term. If this were the case, presidents would no longer worry about politicking during their term with an eye towards re-election, would not spend approximately two years trying to get re-elected and should be able to better execute their policy aims.

But wait, the ever-present contrarian would say: Wouldn’t putting one person in office for six years without re-election hand them unchecked power to wield?

Nay, we would respond, because the process for impeachment and removal would remain the same and could actually stand as a more menacing alternative. This should be the case, because if someone has six years in office and can’t follow through with their policies, then impeach his/her ass and elect a new leader. Simple!

Another major issue The Advocate has with the presidential elections is the sheer amount of money involved.

In a report by The New York Times, Obama and the Donkeys raised $934 million and spent $852.9 million of that while Romney and the Elephants raised $881.8 million and spent $752.3 million. That adds up to roughly $1.6 billion dollars spent on the presidential election by both candidates.

What. The. Hell.

Shouldn’t this money be used for better purposes? Yeah, some money needs to be used for advertising and speaking trips; but, with the Internet, the dissemination of information shouldn’t be hard and speeches could be streamed and kept on file on YouTube, which would drastically cut down on the candidates speaking with Joe-the-Plumber types.

American politics was built on grassroots politics. However, there comes a time when antiquated procedures need to be put to rest. There’s a reason why no one uses typewriters, Polaroids and Walkman players anymore. The same should be said of such folksy grassroots political procedures that occur at the national level.

So, after eating several tacos to soak up all the bingeing of the presidential election, we at The Advocate are eyeing the aforementioned suggestions like an AA brochure and hoping for the best in 2016.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*