My Thoughts On Running An Election

United States
October 21, 2015 10:46pm CST
It is over a year away from election day and I am already tired of it. I cannot imagine how the candidates could keep up the same old tired messages for the next year. I think that the country should revamp how elections in this country are held. To begin with, forget the electoral college. It should be by popular vote only. As far as primaries are concerned, have them all in the same week. Have the party conventions the week after and nominate the candidates. Then give them three months, from August 4 through November 3rd to campaign and then have the election. How do they get noticed leading up to the primaries? By DOING something. Do good works. Make a difference in this country. If they are already in politics, let's see them make some change in the current position they are in. This would give the country a good indicator of whether they would actually accomplish something as President or if it would just be more speeches for the next four years. No speeches, no interviews, no campaign rallies, no fundraising, no political commercials except for those three months. If they want to get noticed, make a difference. What does everyone else think?
4 people like this
5 responses
@Rollo1 (16665)
• Boston, Massachusetts
22 Oct 15
Not sure. Running for election means you have to test your potential candidacy and raise money and if you cannot get enough money or don't generate enough interest, then you are likely not to bother. Hard to know that in just a few weeks time. But I think we should pay less for the jobs and make congress a part time position. That would keep people from thinking it's a way to get rich.
1 person likes this
@indexer (1196)
• Leicester, England
22 Oct 15
Yes - getting the money out of the system would be a huge advantage. You need to set realistic, enforceable limits on how much a candidate can spend in getting elected, so that people cannot buy elections in the way they do currently.
@dawnald (84133)
• Shingle Springs, California
28 Oct 15
Take the big money out of politics, definitely. I'm fine with a direct election instead of using delegate too.
@just4him (106343)
• Green Bay, Wisconsin
25 Oct 15
I agree it's too soon for all those campaigns and commercials, debates and the like. As for their good deeds - they all have track records of some kind. They've all been in the public eye so we can see what they've been doing with their lives. I don't understand the fundraising so have no comment on that.
@indexer (1196)
• Leicester, England
22 Oct 15
You have to be right. Look at how other countries manage the process. In the UK, a General Election is done and dusted in a matter of a few weeks, and the new Prime Minister (if there's a change) moves into 10 Downing Street the day after Election Day. One problem with the American system is that you elect your President at a different time from electing your government, because your top person is not the leader of your top political party. That system gives rise to the impression one gets that the United States is constantly having an election campaign. One very simple change you could make would be to do away with the long transition period between a new president being elected and actually taking office. This is a throwback to the days when people had to get their wagon trains rolling across a continent - these days transport is a lot less time consuming!
@DnkHrth (271)
• Sri Lanka
22 Oct 15
Make a difference is good. But most of them are only making a bad difference. I don't like most of the politicians here.