Skip to main content

The constitution specifies presidential elections every four years and House and Senate elections every two years. Only in the Senate is there an interleaving process whereby about 1/3 of all senators are up for election each year.

This is the firing cycle, if you will, of our federal political engine.

However, many states have non-federal elections of one kind or another every year, sometimes even more than that. So what it the reason why federal elections are so infrequent? What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach?

There has been a huge shift in the technology of elections such that the gargantuan increase in the size of the electorate has been much more than offset by the ease that we now enjoy in our political campaigns and elections. Whereas it may have seem back in the 1790's that a two-year cycle was about as much as was possible, that is no longer true. The clearest example of this is the frequency of non-federal elections, for things like state and local offices, primaries (a relatively modern concept, not technically feasible in the 18th Century) and voter initiatives, in those states burdened by that practice. I believe that, like so many other things in our constitution, the two-year election cycle is a vestige of a less technologically advanced time. Are we condemned simply to accept it as a necessary structural element of our democracy, our should we consider changing it?

In its favor, there is a certain simplicity in the two-year cycle. At the national level, elections are like a hammer coming down every two years, alternating a heavier stroke for presidential years with a lighter stroke in the off-years. This definitely establishes a national heart beat, as it has for over 200 years. Some might argue that that is a good thing. It allows politically active people to rest for a year or more before bestirring themselves to get ready for the next election cycle. The people can go on about their business without thinking so much about politics for as much as 22 months at a time, in the traditional cycle (in spite of strong attempts in the media, I think most people try to not think about elections until two months (or two days!) before they actually have to vote).

I had the idea that we could go to an annual election cycle. The Senate would increase the interleave so that about 1/6 of its members would be elected each year, and the House would have an interleave so that half of its members were elected each year. For the purposes of simplicity, all terms would remain the same (e.g., you might get a more interesting spread if terms were prime numbers, like 2, 3, and 5, or exponential, like 2, 4, and 8, but I won't go there).

An annual cycle could be better integrated into the national life than the current bi-annual cycle. There could be a true "federal election day", perhaps even an annual holiday called “First Tuesday”. Not all states would actually have a federal election every year even under this approach (and I won't discuss here why or how that should be changed), but even the smallest states with a single representative could be set up to have a federal election 5 out of 6 years. This would result in smaller ballot lists, with a greater focus on individual races. Each election would have a smaller impact on the nation. There would be fewer sharp changes of power. Each year, there would be a new term of both houses of congress, unlike the traditional two-year terms. This would act to make both houses much more responsive to the national mood, while simultaneously filtering out truly radical transitions (because even in the House, only half of the seats would be up for election each year).

Also, since every year would be a federal election year, we wouldn't really be shifting in and out of "voter mode" so much. I think this would cause less "election year craziness", since each individual election would be smaller and therefore less “critical”.

An analogy would be with going from a four-cylinder engine to an eight-cylinder. You get a smoother ride and more power.

Well, that's it. Happy 9/12 day.

Originally posted to Greg Shenaut on Sun Sep 12, 2010 at 11:18 AM PDT.


The election cycle

50%9 votes
33%6 votes
11%2 votes
0%0 votes
5%1 votes

| 18 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Every year is federal election year? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, beltane

    apart from the fact that would cost far too much money, nothing would get done because everyone would be campaging,

    If anything I think the election cycle should be  2 years longer.  As it is, it seems like everyone gets ready to campagin too fast.

    Down with Prop H8! Jerry Brown for CA_GOV 2010

    by GlowNZ on Sun Sep 12, 2010 at 11:21:08 AM PDT

  •  All consideration of the structure (0+ / 0-)

    of the federal government, that doesn't begin with an understanding of the relevant parts of the Federalist Papers, is dumb.

    For the extra-dim: In this case, Federalist 52 seems particularly relevant.

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Sun Sep 12, 2010 at 11:44:52 AM PDT

  •  What the hell, even more often? (0+ / 0-)

    We'd be in a constant campaign cycle even more than we already are, and even though I love campaigns, it wouldn't be good for policymaking. No one could really keep track of what's happening or which Representatives/Senators are up in which year, and it would just suck.

    You realize that with a federal election every 2 years the US is in a top percentile, right? Most countries have elections every 4 years for everything.

    Support Dennis McDonald and Montana Democrats in the 2010 election!

    by twohundertseventy on Sun Sep 12, 2010 at 12:22:18 PM PDT

    •  Oh, another one. (0+ / 0-)

      Parties would be rewarded even more for a momentous swing in public opinion, which means that they'd be even less likely to pursue policy that's unpopular, but necessary. Now they can hope that voters have forgotten about that tax hike/Health Care Mandate/whatever until the next election and do what they think is right and not what will get them reelected at least 6-12 months each cycle.

      Support Dennis McDonald and Montana Democrats in the 2010 election!

      by twohundertseventy on Sun Sep 12, 2010 at 12:23:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Misunderstanding (0+ / 0-)

    In the 18th century two years was considered a long term (Rhode Island legislators got six month terms and annual elections were not uncommon).

    Indirect election and the Presidential four year term and especially the six year staggered Senate terms were intended to reduce the influence of ordinary people over the government.

    Most modern democracies have legislative terms of three to five years. In Parliamentary systems the terms can be cut short by the method of a dissolution, but most Parliaments run for longer than two years.

    For example the UK is currently on its 55th Parliament (since the union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801). During the first 110 years the maximum length of a Parliament was 7 years, after that 5 years (apart from extensions due to the two world wars - there are advantages to a flexible constitution, not codified into a rigid document which it is difficult to amend). The average length of a Parliament is just under four years. The present proposal for fixed term Parliaments would make most future UK Parliaments last 5 years.

    It is up to Americans how long election cycles should be, but I would suggest directly electing the President, all Senators and Representatives for 4 year terms (all on the same day) would encourage higher turnouts and make US government more democratic in structure.

    There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

    by Gary J on Sun Sep 12, 2010 at 12:28:39 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site