Skip to main content

The pundits have thoroughly vetted the ramifications of the recent election -- except they have ignored the most imporant lesson of all: a critical look at the election process itself.

Commenting on the recent election in well regarded post mortems, various pundits have cogently described what the ramifications of Barack Obama’s reelection will mean to the country. Most seem astute – but missing from these analyses was probably the most important consequence we could and should learn from this election. That would be a careful look at the election process itself in America today. And, it isn’t pretty.

Had any of the sources examined this component of the election, they would have found virtually unanimous criticism of three disturbing trends in our electoral process: our presidential elections are too long…too expensive…and too negative. Additionally, the future of presidential elections portends more of the same -- maybe even worse -- unless we demand some changes in the process.

Too long:

It started in early 2011, when a wide range of Republican presidential candidates began jockeying for the nomination. Throughout that summer the nation was inundated with a series of debates, along with fratricidal fighting and attacks on the opposition (mostly Democrats, but Republican challengers as well). We had to endure over a year and a half of bickering and babble to get to a final outcome. The first primary state (Iowa, which is actually a caucus state) was Jan. 3; then 11 more months of ads and acrimony till Nov. 6.

The effect of this is that the public has become numb and increasingly disinterested (sometimes even disgusted), when we should be having a stimulating debate on the future of our nation. That has not – and will not – happen with our present system.
No other democratic nation (especially those we most identify with) have such a grueling and protracted schedule, and ours has now stretched out to absurd lengths. In January of 2010, the Guardian published this quote about the length of the English election process: “Over the years, Margaret Thatcher was wrong about a lot of things. One thing she got right, however, was the length of British general election campaigns. ‘Three weeks is long enough,’ she pronounced in 1997”. Though the British have Parliamentary elections, her surmise is quite apt.

Similarly, in Canada, the length of election campaigns can vary, but under the Elections Act, there is no explicit maximum length for a campaign; however, the longest campaign ever (1926) was only 74 days. Most are much shorter.

Again, in Australia, upon dissolution of Parliament, writs are issued for nominations within 10 days; and the total length of the election process is generally about 68 days start to finish.  These are lessons to which we should pay heed.

Too expensive:

When the final cost tally is in, there will have been several billion dollars invested in this election – obscene amounts.  Election costs have been rising for decades for several reasons.

Two worthy of note are the proliferation of television outlets which are voracious in their consumption of candidates’ dollars; and the SCOTUS decision in the Citizens United case. By allowing unlimited sums from corporations and unions, Citizens United has created massively funded Super PACs who have spent huge sums on mostly negative attack ads. Since they are not allowed to coordinate with specific candidates, their strategy has been to saturate the media with edgy and sometimes scurrilous attacks on candidates or causes they oppose. The good news here is that because of the frequency of the ads, the public has in a sense turned them off, and to some degree the frequency along with the negative messages has created an occasional backlash. Additionally, new studies have found that the effect of all this PAC spending may not affect election outcomes as much as first believed. One can only hope!

Too negative:

Negative campaigns are not new, but the trend is for greater acrimony. Possibly our primary and caucus system creates a base for negative campaigning because to get the nomination one has to provide contrasts between themselves and others from their own party. But whatever the reason, substantive debates on policy are often sublimated to the tidal wave of aforementioned negative ads, bickering, and babble. The voting public says it wants to hear positive programs and policy from the candidates – but such specificity is generally lacking. The true “debates” on policy amounted to a few hours of national TV time a month before the election. Perhaps more of that, and less sound bites, might be more enlightening?

More important lesson:

Skilled analysts offer useful commentary concerning the past election; but most involve the ramifications for the next few years of the Obama administration. Of greater importance is the way we can strengthen the electoral process for future elections. In America today, the length of the campaigns, negativism, and outrageous costs have deadened the voters to connecting with the issues. Then, there is the time our president (and candidates) spend campaigning rather than governing.

In a sense, we have relegated ourselves to elections in which it is now too often said: "who cares”? Well, we should care if we truly want better government. And making our elections shorter, less costly, and more positive would be a vital first step.


Presidential elections in America today are:

100%14 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes

| 14 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

  •  I thought your post was going to address (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    voting problems, like confusing policies (voter ID), long lines due to limits on early voting, provisional balloting, and voter intimidation efforts.  That's a scandal in a democracy and could get worse.

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 03:32:16 PM PST

  •   I have to say that yes (0+ / 0-)

    this recent campaign was too long and too expensive, especially considering that mitwitt rmoney has been perpetually campaigning for the better part of the last six years.   And yes, there is far too much money in elections, and this will only change with legislative action, and there probably will be none of this with the current make-up of congress.

    With that, since it is what it is, I think the dems best bring back Howard Dean (or someone with his approach) and the 50 state strategy, or the 435-some district strategy, or even the 10000 some precinct strategy.  Dems need to be present in all locations to contrast them with what the rethugs currently stand for.  Obama seemed to have dismantled this strategy in favor of his re-election, and  it's good that he did this, since he won his re-election.  But future candidates cannot be guaranteed to have his appeal, or his campaign's insight into the electorate.  

    It's time to start turning states like AZ and TX over to the dems, and making sure that the rethugs understand that it's not their failure to communicate their message that's loosing them elections, but their despicable batshit-brained lunatic message itself is what's turning off the voters.  

    And now is the time to start planning the 2014 war using 2014 battle techniques.  Planning elections on past elections is a sure-fire loosing strategy, as the rethugs well learned this past election.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site