Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Last fall a television news host advised viewers to “fasten their seat belts“ because they were
now in the exciting final countdown to the presidential election – which was at that point fifteen
months in the future!
Strange as it once would have seemed, the comment actually made some sense because the
news cycle had been filled for three years with daily analysis of the latest poll results and
speculation from the campaign trail. Somehow we have bumbled our way into extraordinarily
long election seasons.
Endless campaigns have not evolved in response to public demands or the efforts of good
government reformers. On the contrary, a majority of Americans report feeling fatigued and
believe that presidential campaigns run too long.
It wasn’t always this way, of course. Presidential candidates were originally chosen by
Congress. By the mid-19th century, national parties had formed and candidates were selected
in smoke-filled rooms at their conventions. After WWII, presidential primaries emerged as a way
for rank-and-file party members to participate in the selection process.
By 1960, there were 16 state primaries. John F. Kennedy was nominated when his strong
showing in West Virginia convinced Democrats a Catholic could be a viable candidate. After
Democrats changed the rules following the contentious 1968 convention, even more states
began conducting primaries.
Each new reform had the effect of lengthening the campaign season. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, the
obscure governor of Georgia, won the nomination by getting a jump on the competition in the
January Iowa caucuses. Ambitious politicians ever since have taken note.
In the late 20th century, the race among states to bolster their influence by holding earlier
primaries was on. By 2008, four-fifths of the states were conducting their primaries by March.
Campaigns begin long before the primaries. Active campaign staffs for the 2024 election by now
have been operating for years. In the past, early in the election year was often the time
candidates declared. This year, the train has left the station already. Deadlines for many
primaries have passed. It would take a Herculean effort to jumpstart a campaign at this point.
Some commentators applaud the democratization of the candidate selection process. But super
long campaigns have several unfortunate consequences.
Financing a long campaign is a money draining effort that favors deep pockets. Most candidates
are unable to self-fund so they are obliged to spend immense amounts of time and do lots of
promising to raise the necessary millions.
Voters may complain about campaign length, but the media are fine with it. Horse race stories
are easy to write and sell well because they are simple to understand and naturally involve
human interest as the candidates become known to voters.
Meanwhile, stories which are consequential for all Americans, like the deliberations of the
Federal Reserve Board, the growing bellicosity of America’s existential enemies or the details
of energy policy get scant attention.
Campaigns affect governance too. It’s well known that the more challenging, risky issues are
harder to tackle in an election year. When every year is in effect an election year, then it’s never
the right time to do the heavy lifting.
Forgiving student debt and paying outrageous, unwise sums for hostage ransoms, especially for
celebrities, is catnip for weak, vote-seeking politicians. On the other hand, anything that reeks of
fiscal restraint or sacrifice for the future public good is studiously ignored. Entitlement reform is
out of the question.
Campaigns could theoretically be defended for allowing voters to more thoroughly vet the
candidates and so make better-informed decisions. But it doesn’t seem to work that way. We
have elected mostly mediocrities in the last half century. The process this cycle seems to be
producing the most incompetent, dishonest and disliked candidates in memory. We can do
better.
Other modern democracies don’t subject themselves to such an exhausting ordeal. Elections in
Canada, the UK and Australia, all admittedly parliamentary systems, are legally limited to about
six weeks. Nobody is clamoring for longer elections in these countries.
America has short presidential terms and long election seasons. As inertia and populism
continue to dog our politics and the problems pile up, maybe we also should consider limiting
our costly, dysfunctional campaigns.
Discussion (14)
MODERATOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Trump vs Biden. What could be more exciting or better?
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Didn't we already do that? And didn't it backfire horribly?
How about addressing the cause and not the effect?
[edit...]
Look, I'm not a political professional or anything, I'm an engineer, but to me this seems completely obvious...
For one political party, the main financial goal of winning an election is the opportunity to drain the treasury, spending as much money as possible on useless, wasteful, misguided, and badly managed programs, and in the process, pocketing a percentage. The more money that is spent, the more money you pocket. And as a bonus, you get to move the Overton Window of acceptable spending for the next year. "Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money."
So, the more money spent on government programs, the higher the value of winning that election. And so more money is raised as donors are receiving more for their campaign dollar.
Now at the same, the opposing party isn't as driven. They won't drain the treasury as quickly, they won't pocket as much of a percentage, and so their contributions are lower, but they are still forced to spend more money on their campaigns to keep up.
Okay? So, let's see how this compares to observations.
If this mechanism is actually happening, you would see a close correlation between government spending and campaign spending.
And you do. Here is a chart of federal spending over the years:
And here is a chart of campaign spending over the years:
`Nailed it.
Further, by this mechanism, you should see the spending party spending about twice as much money on their campaigns as the trailing party. Which is the case; if you look at the campaign spending by party over the years.
So basic economics tells us that since campaign spending follows government spending, the only way to curb campaign spending is to reduce government spending.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
That is mostly because these other governments have shadow cabinets run by the opposition parties. The shadow cabinets are always in a state of argument against the elected government. And the electorate can remove people--see the recent ouster of Liz Truss. In our system, unhappy voters can only wait the situation out. While they are waiting, they are actively supporting the other side.
Argument and opposition are healthy and normal for democracies. Our long-running election campaigns provide those things. :)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Populism (MW) - 1. a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people 2. a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
Populism (wikipedia) - a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment
What is your issue with populism, Tom? Is it just the gent in the picture?
The opposite of populism is elitism. I'd argue that the elites of both parties have tried to control the voices of the people, with the help and sometimes hindrance of media insiders.
You cite 1968. I was in the streets of Chicago that summer, a dangerous way home from the National Student Association conference in Kansas. Inside the convention hall Senator Ribicoff accused Mayor Daley of using gestapo tactics in the streets. The postmodern, camera-conscious Yippies chanted "the whole world is watching." Guerilla theater.
The media eagerly juxtaposed the images. Up in his hotel room Vice-President Humphrey closed the window to shut out the tear gas, and went back to tallying up his (mostly non-primary) delegate count. The bosses and unions were the political elites, not the grass roots anti-war activists, and they regained control of the process after RFK was killed. Four years later the Democrats had to put in primaries, and the activist wing took control. Fifty years later those same activists are the elites, and they wouldn't even let RFK Jr. run in their primaries.
Over on the Republican side, the Trump populists have "the masses," but the elites haven't given up. They're laying in wait, from the board rooms of the Murdoch empire, to Nikki's billionaire bunch, to their bitterly divided House. Will the "peasants with pitch forks" prevail because the Great Man behind the movement is such a force of nature?
That old curse "may you live in interesting times" has a disturbing resonance. A growing middle minority wants some quietly competent "most uninteresting man (or woman) in the world" to appear, and somehow become President. The fair response of the Trump populists is just give us the four more years he's earned. It makes sense. As a succession planner, he's worse than Kendall Roy.
Maybe by 2028 a couple of reasonably competent GenXers with no sharply defined media profile at all will just turn up. Maybe compromises and trade-offs on the issues themselves will become the winning path four years from now, instead of the cult of personality. But how?
You're seeing five of 14 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.