4 ms·

Plenty of countries have elections on a fixed cycle and an election date known years in advance, and they don't have these extremely long drawn-out campaigns. A

by arp242 2y ago

Plenty of countries have elections on a fixed cycle and an election date known years in advance, and they don't have these extremely long drawn-out campaigns. Also, in most countries candidates also don't spend a fucktillion dollars on campaigning – another thing that has gotten rather out of hand in the US. And the mid-terms make it even worse. De-facto the US runs on a two-year election cycle. I suspect this is part of the reason why things are so screwed in the first place.

wongarsu 2y ago
Most countries put legal limits on either campaign spending or campaign duration, or both. That prevents campaign lengths from spiraling out of control and forces campaigns to be a lot more focused (hopefully focused on substance). The US is one of the earlier modern democracies and as a consequence there are lots of little implementation flaws. And any change is seen as blasphemy against the will of the founding fathers. Many other democracies either had more hindsight available when they wrote their constitution, or were more open to change
- ipaddr 2y ago
  Also gives the people in power control and the ability to block out new messages. No sure it's fair or democratic. Some countries give tax payer money based on how you did previously which greatly benefits the status quo
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    > Also gives the people in power control and the ability to block out new messages. No sure it's fair or democratic. With limited campaigns you usually run with people who are already known and have a long track record that's decently well known. The equivalent of running a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders. There shouldn't be much new stuff to drag up except their specific policies. > Some countries give tax payer money based on how you did previously which greatly benefits the status quo On the other hand if the state doesn't give parties money then the parties are just going to do whatever brings them the biggest donations, leading to a country run by the rich and the corporations. And you can't hand out money regardless of past performance since anyone can form a party at any time. There is no winning solution here, but giving tax money to parties can be the smaller evil
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  This isn't an implementation flaw, this is (arguably) by design. You can't regulate campaign spending or duration without regulating political speech, which is a huge no-no under the 1st Amendment. I don't actually agree with that argument, of course. SCOTUS has been perfectly willing to go along with "time and manner" regulations on political speech in the past and I don't see why "nobody can spend more than $X or campaign longer than Y days" is forbidden when "nobody can protest the G7 summit" is. The US's free speech extremism has, in practice, turned into a delegated right to censorship. And under current SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution, the government is equally powerless to stop both speech and private censorship. The true answer, of course, is that Trump and the donor class have coopted SCOTUS into an instrument of centralized power. SCOTUS is the scorpion[0] that stung the Progressive frog. They make this shit up as they go - free speech for me, censorship for thee. Fortunately, SCOTUS's legitimacy is in the toilet, and that power base can be broken; but it requires Congress and the President act to defang SCOTUS in a way that does not merely shift power. It needs to be distributed again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
  - dbspin 2y ago
    From your lips to God's ears. As a non-American very much staring at tea leaves, I do worry stuffing the supreme court, or removing some of its power is the kind of act that could provoke a complete breakdown in the political system. Republican refusal to participate in the legislature, outright political violence that sort of thing. It's essential to save the democratic process at this point - but perhaps it's naïve to think that ship hasn't sailed. Kind of astonishing to see recent supreme court decisions like Chevron and presumptive immunity, happening with only nominal opposition - rather than say riots in the streets. Seems there's little mandate for radical change, and a democratic victory may simply delay the inevitable.
    - NavinF 2y ago
      FYI most americans don't care about any of this. I suspect you're getting your info from chronically online people and the articles they read. That aside, if you're interested in US politics you might wanna look at the details of those decisions. Eg, read this section about the case that brought down Chevron deference. You'll see that pretty much any judge or jury would have sided with the plaintiffs: https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk.-,The%20Case,-The%20issue%20began https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk...
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Also, notably, the US Supreme Court has ruled against virtually all attempts at campaign finance reform, with several notable recent cases, e.g., Citizens United. Others, from 1976 -- 2021: "Campaign Finance and the Supreme Court" <https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-finance-and-the-supreme-court https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-financ...>
- latexr 2y ago
  > And any change is seen as blasphemy against the will of the founding fathers. Anyone who uses this reasoning (I understand you’re not doing so) should immediately be shut up by quoting the inscription on the southeast interior wall of the Jefferson Memorial: > I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. That’s as clear as can be: to honour the founding fathers’ intention, laws must not remain static.
  - wheels 2y ago
    I'd say exactly your argument is why it's hard to make changes. The US has this pretty weird civil religion where the constitution is the holy text and the people that wrote the constitution are prophets. Most other countries don't have that. A lot of democracies don't even have constitutions (UK, for example). The US constitution is an interesting historical document, but it's just a collection of laws. There are a lot of things democracies have figured out since it was written. Amendments are basically impossible at this point because the canon is closed and American politics have evolved to make it structurally impossible. It should be possible to argue that laws should be fluid without appealing to the prophets of the civil religion. You could, you know, just talk about why it's a good idea. Shouldn't that be more powerful than trying to guess what someone who lived multiple centuries ago would have thought about it?
    - latexr 2y ago
      Your comment is confusing. It seemed like you were going to offer a rebuttal but then didn’t say anything that disagrees with my point. I’m not saying laws should evolve because a founding father said so. I’m saying that people who invoke the founding fathers’ will as a reason to not change laws should be corrected that a founding father specifically said that laws should be fluid. Yes, invoking the founding fathers is a stupid argument. And in addition to being stupid it’s also wrong. Meaning there’s zero reason to ever use that argument and people who do can be contradicted by their own logic.
oceanplexian 2y ago
> Plenty of countries[..] don't have these extremely long drawn-out campaigns. Also, in most countries candidates also don't spend a fucktillion dollars on campaigning – another thing that has gotten rather out of hand in the US. Presumably you mean in Europe, but most countries around the world are parliamentary. They have no system of checks and balances due to legislative capture; the Executive really has no power and can be trivially forced to resign. There's no real point in running a huge campaign for a figurehead that doesn't have any real independence. Plus, it would go without mentioning that the USA is the world's largest economy, so it's not surprising a lot of money would be diverted to elections with economic consequences.

by arp242 2y ago

wongarsu 2y ago

Most countries put legal limits on either campaign spending or campaign duration, or both. That prevents campaign lengths from spiraling out of control and forces campaigns to be a lot more focused (hopefully focused on substance). The US is one of the earlier modern democracies and as a consequence there are lots of little implementation flaws. And any change is seen as blasphemy against the will of the founding fathers. Many other democracies either had more hindsight available when they wrote their constitution, or were more open to change

ipaddr 2y ago
Also gives the people in power control and the ability to block out new messages. No sure it's fair or democratic. Some countries give tax payer money based on how you did previously which greatly benefits the status quo
- wongarsu 2y ago
  > Also gives the people in power control and the ability to block out new messages. No sure it's fair or democratic. With limited campaigns you usually run with people who are already known and have a long track record that's decently well known. The equivalent of running a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders. There shouldn't be much new stuff to drag up except their specific policies. > Some countries give tax payer money based on how you did previously which greatly benefits the status quo On the other hand if the state doesn't give parties money then the parties are just going to do whatever brings them the biggest donations, leading to a country run by the rich and the corporations. And you can't hand out money regardless of past performance since anyone can form a party at any time. There is no winning solution here, but giving tax money to parties can be the smaller evil
kmeisthax 2y ago
This isn't an implementation flaw, this is (arguably) by design. You can't regulate campaign spending or duration without regulating political speech, which is a huge no-no under the 1st Amendment. I don't actually agree with that argument, of course. SCOTUS has been perfectly willing to go along with "time and manner" regulations on political speech in the past and I don't see why "nobody can spend more than $X or campaign longer than Y days" is forbidden when "nobody can protest the G7 summit" is. The US's free speech extremism has, in practice, turned into a delegated right to censorship. And under current SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution, the government is equally powerless to stop both speech and private censorship. The true answer, of course, is that Trump and the donor class have coopted SCOTUS into an instrument of centralized power. SCOTUS is the scorpion[0] that stung the Progressive frog. They make this shit up as they go - free speech for me, censorship for thee. Fortunately, SCOTUS's legitimacy is in the toilet, and that power base can be broken; but it requires Congress and the President act to defang SCOTUS in a way that does not merely shift power. It needs to be distributed again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
- dbspin 2y ago
  From your lips to God's ears. As a non-American very much staring at tea leaves, I do worry stuffing the supreme court, or removing some of its power is the kind of act that could provoke a complete breakdown in the political system. Republican refusal to participate in the legislature, outright political violence that sort of thing. It's essential to save the democratic process at this point - but perhaps it's naïve to think that ship hasn't sailed. Kind of astonishing to see recent supreme court decisions like Chevron and presumptive immunity, happening with only nominal opposition - rather than say riots in the streets. Seems there's little mandate for radical change, and a democratic victory may simply delay the inevitable.
  - NavinF 2y ago
    FYI most americans don't care about any of this. I suspect you're getting your info from chronically online people and the articles they read. That aside, if you're interested in US politics you might wanna look at the details of those decisions. Eg, read this section about the case that brought down Chevron deference. You'll see that pretty much any judge or jury would have sided with the plaintiffs: https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk.-,The%20Case,-The%20issue%20began https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk...
dredmorbius 2y ago
Also, notably, the US Supreme Court has ruled against virtually all attempts at campaign finance reform, with several notable recent cases, e.g., Citizens United. Others, from 1976 -- 2021: "Campaign Finance and the Supreme Court" <https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-finance-and-the-supreme-court https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-financ...>
latexr 2y ago
> And any change is seen as blasphemy against the will of the founding fathers. Anyone who uses this reasoning (I understand you’re not doing so) should immediately be shut up by quoting the inscription on the southeast interior wall of the Jefferson Memorial: > I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. That’s as clear as can be: to honour the founding fathers’ intention, laws must not remain static.
- wheels 2y ago
  I'd say exactly your argument is why it's hard to make changes. The US has this pretty weird civil religion where the constitution is the holy text and the people that wrote the constitution are prophets. Most other countries don't have that. A lot of democracies don't even have constitutions (UK, for example). The US constitution is an interesting historical document, but it's just a collection of laws. There are a lot of things democracies have figured out since it was written. Amendments are basically impossible at this point because the canon is closed and American politics have evolved to make it structurally impossible. It should be possible to argue that laws should be fluid without appealing to the prophets of the civil religion. You could, you know, just talk about why it's a good idea. Shouldn't that be more powerful than trying to guess what someone who lived multiple centuries ago would have thought about it?
  - latexr 2y ago
    Your comment is confusing. It seemed like you were going to offer a rebuttal but then didn’t say anything that disagrees with my point. I’m not saying laws should evolve because a founding father said so. I’m saying that people who invoke the founding fathers’ will as a reason to not change laws should be corrected that a founding father specifically said that laws should be fluid. Yes, invoking the founding fathers is a stupid argument. And in addition to being stupid it’s also wrong. Meaning there’s zero reason to ever use that argument and people who do can be contradicted by their own logic.

oceanplexian 2y ago

> Plenty of countries[..] don't have these extremely long drawn-out campaigns. Also, in most countries candidates also don't spend a fucktillion dollars on campaigning – another thing that has gotten rather out of hand in the US. Presumably you mean in Europe, but most countries around the world are parliamentary. They have no system of checks and balances due to legislative capture; the Executive really has no power and can be trivially forced to resign. There's no real point in running a huge campaign for a figurehead that doesn't have any real independence. Plus, it would go without mentioning that the USA is the world's largest economy, so it's not surprising a lot of money would be diverted to elections with economic consequences.