I hope Americans won't take offense at what I'm about to say.

[glarius]

There is something I feel I must say to my American friends. It seems to me as if campaigning and electioneering never stops! It seems as if there is always either an ongoing election or an election right around the corner.
Could that be the reason things like universal healthcare don't get done? Politicians are too concerned with getting re-elected?
In my country, and other parliamentary democracies like Great Britain and some other European democracies, there is an election every 4 or 5 years, and no election advertising is permitted (at least not in Canada) until the start of an election. Between elections, things actually get done.
I hope my American friends won't hate me for what I've said....I wish you only good luck and all the best in the future.

[kick-ass-bob]

1. tell me about it.

They really need to shorten these things.

But how can they raise the money if they're not always campaigning?

*sigh*

[tex-wyo-dem]

108. and that's exactly why we neeed 100% publically financed...

Elections! It would remove the whole "fund-raising" bullshit, which is corrupt to the core. Plus it would absolutely neuter the Citizen's United decision.

Imagine: each candidate is given the exact same amounts of funds to run their campaigns. Very strick rules on equal time re: media exposure. I guarantee you we would see a VERY different government :)

[The Wizard]

126. But what's to stop the wealthy elites

from funneling money into off shore tax havens like the Cayman Islands?

[EOTE]

156. Ummm, nothing. At least not for the time being.

But it would at least keep them from providing undue influence in the elections. Then their tax havens could be taken care of later.

[The Wizard]

160. How many of our legislators

have accounts in off shore tax havens? One office building in the Caymans has 18,000 "corporations" using it as a mailing address.

[EOTE]

162. I don't know, but that's somewhat irrelevant.

The point is to keep their influence out of the elections. Off shore accounts is certainly a problem, but it doesn't have anything to do with corporate control of our elections.

[The Wizard]

167. So let me get this straight

A corporation sends cash to a legislator's off shore account with the expectations of getting favorable legislation and somehow that's irrelevant. Kindly inform me of how that doesn't corrupt the system. In any other language it's bribery.

[EOTE]

169. I'm fairly certain that's currently illegal.

Are you saying that can currently be done within the confines of the law? You're suggesting that the money would go directly to the legislator and not something like a PAC, right?

[jtown1123]

2. We welcome your insight. Thanks! K&R You make a valid point.

[Yavin4]

3. Campaigns Are Great, Free Content for Major Media Companies

Governing is not.

[DCKit]

18. "Free Content for Major Media Companies"

And, far too often, content free.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Do you have term limits in Canada?

[Booster]

I think that's the answer to a lot of our problems.

[librechik]

12. If we go for term limits, then the (few) good ones will have to leave

Also, with a system as complex and quirky as the Senate Rules and the House Boys Club, we need to keep that institutional knowledge from decent long term reps rather than throw it away.

[jwirr]

49. I agree we need to stay away from term limits - there are too many

good congresspeople who would be replaced by a Tbagger. Aside from that what about the seniority system - do we need that and how would not having it affect the system?

[librechik]

53. I think they should do away with the Senate entirely

and do something different and more representative--I can't stand the entitlement and ignorance in that snakebox full of landowners millionaires and secret confederate activists.

[jwirr]

58. I lived in Nebraska for a while and the only difference I saw was that

it cost less - less congress people.

[donquijoterocket]

149. mistakes

the unicameral also unfortunately allows for mistakes to happen much more quickly and with less opportunity for dissenting viewpoints to be heard. I agree with the first poster.Public financing,strict requirements on equal time for ads and a limited campaign season which could start no sooner than a specified period before the election.

[MicaelS]

70. That will require a Constitutional Amendment...

And THAT isn't going to happen EVER.

In fact, many Conservatives and Libertarians want to repeal the 17th Amendment which allowed direct election of Senators. They want to go back to the old method where each State Legislature picked it's own US Senators.

[ElboRuum]

97. With respect...

...I believe that it is the careerism of the legislature which brings more harm, more than any possible "brain drain" of "good" congresspeople would. The point is to avoid having politics turn into a career.

[tex-wyo-dem]

110. Nope...term limits are not the answer. It's our whole election system that needs revamped...

We need 100% publically financed elections.

Imagine an incumbant having the exact same media exposure and monetary resources to run their elction as the unknown challenger. The only advantage (disadvantage in some cases) they would have is name recognition and voting record.

[glarius]

13. No term limits.

[AlmostUlyanov]

133. No, NNNOLHI, we don't

What we do have is "caucus solidarity." If the leader of your party advocates a position, you, as a member of parliament, have to vote that way. If you don't, you get kicked out of the party and have to run alone to retain your seat in the next election. In other words, no Max Baucuses.

[Greybnk48]

5. It wasn't always like this. I place much of the blame for

this endless campaigning on cable news 24/7 and mostly on cable Fox "News" for politicizing everything. The political climate here is toxic. Ugh!:(

[October]

41. I think you're right. I well remember when we never saw politicians on TV...

Now they're all celebrities in their $5,000 suits and salon tans.

[jwirr]

50. You mean we never saw them unless they were actually doing

their job.

[RaleighNCDUer]

153. Or caught doing something that was not their job,

such as wading in the Potomac with a stripper.

[The Wizard]

127. Show business for the ugly and untalented (NT)

[defendandprotect]

85. Remember that MSM gets 80% of the campaign funds for TV ads ... !!!

[octothorpe]

142. Yeah, everything is turned political here...

Sadly it's not just the right who do it either. People get caught up in "being right"(in their mind) and "winning" that they stop trying to do honest work toward improving the country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. In America, elections are part of the entetainment industry and real money makers.

[Mosaic]

134. It's reality teevee

For the lame and bored.

[librechik]

7. you are absolutely right and we hate it too--

But there is so much money being made by so many people off extending and extending our elections, and the recent SCOTUS decision Citizens United, also recent moves against public financing of elections--I have lost any hope that it can ever be fixed. Now I hope for a disaster so large and calamitous that at lat no one can ignore it and we will be forced to so something to save our free elections.

And I know hope is not a strategy.

[tawadi]

8. No offense taken. Just so you know....

it wasn't always this way.

[Marrah_G]

9. I take no offense

in fact I agree with you- unfortun ately the ones who need to make the changes to stop these practices are the very people benefiting from them.

[Ikonoklast]

10. You sound lahk one of them thar furriners.

Jes be careful we don't accuse you of havin' weapons of mass destruction, mmmk?

[Enthusiast]

54. Pfft

[Ship of Fools]

11. Thanks for your thoughts. I envy you guys up north.

You are speaking to the choir here. We're so bogged down with corporate $$ running our system, that the only way to stay in is to be in perpetual campaign mode. I think I read somewhere that close to 30% of Congresscritters' time is spent looking for funds...

SIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

[doc03]

14. I agree with you and would bet about 90% of Americans

Republicans and Democrats would also agree.

[RaleighNCDUer]

154. The other 10% is corporate execs and professional politicians. nt

[Dragonfli]

15. Why would anyone hate you for making an observation? A true one at that.

You are of course correct in your assessment that getting elected has become job one consuming at least four fifths of our politicians time in office, it is quite the industry here in the US.

We have devolved into a country where raising money and pleasing the wealthiest individuals and businesses has become the actual job of our political class. The only thing they are better at than favoring moneyed interests and getting donations is perhaps their side job of fooling actual voters into believing they intend to work for them and not the wealthy donors, many see through this and watch what they do, what they do makes it plain to us they are working only in the interests of large donors. Now that all corporate money is fair game (without even disclosing the source), you will see even more legislation that while destroying the country and harming people (killing many in fact due to lack of health care and shelter), will prove profitable for multinationals and trust fund babies.

You live in a Democracy and find it understandably difficult to fathom why we do not change this.
We can not change this you see because we don't live in a Democracy, we live in an Oligarchy.

Even our so called populist party will sacrifice the populations well-being for the profit margins of a few as evidenced by even Obama's continued attempts to instigate cuts in our meager safety nets (that we paid for) in order to finance continued tax breaks for the wealthy and Corporations, remember, he is supposed to be the populist, you can imagine how bad the John Birchers are.

We are screwed my friend, all I can say is DO NOT LET THE NEO-LIBERALS in Canada trade away your safety nets and actual Democracy in favor of a Dickensian Oligarchy like what is forming here now, You may still have a chance, we are too far gone to avoid the inevitable downward spiral and then eventual Revolution that will kill many and may simply replace one privileged class with a different one.
Such is the way of these things throughout history.

Fight for your country before it is too late for you as well.

[lordsummerisle]

87. Well said dragonfli! n/t

[marions ghost]

16. "The Gladiators"

...big money riding on it. "Idiocracy" -- the movie.

Not much we piggies at the end of the trough can do about it.

You speak truth glarius. Keep talking.

[Gregorian]

17. Commercial America

Annoying America

Unhealthy America

Dying America

[RaleighNCDUer]

155. Is that a Gregorian chant? nt

[Gregorian]

168. Gothic

:)

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. American politicians want us to not know when and how something works well in another country.

It might interfere with their money-making.

[atreides1]

20. No offense

Wish we had the same thing here...but unfortunately, our founders were men of a diffrent caliber, not perfect but in most cases, men of honor and integrity.

Not too many American politicians share those traits, and the ones that do often get voted out by an electorate consisting of mouth breathing knuckle draggers...

[Solly Mack]

21. K&R

Hard to govern when you're busy pandering.

[Shandris]

22. No hate here, you're absolutely right.

Thank you for voicing your insight, and never hesitate to. :)

[treestar]

23. Parliamentary system allows for it

Also the First Amendment - we could not allow any limiting laws.

I think our system was meant for it to be difficult to pass any laws - it is full of obstruction by its own nature. It has its good sides and bad, as would the parliamentary system.

[dana_b]

24. you are so right and no offense taken

most of us hate it too.

[blindpig]

25. It is a distraction

it gives the populace a distorted idea of what politics is about, the tail wags the dog. It's all about the campaign, as though what happens in between is of lesser consequence.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Another part of the problem is that we haven't neutered our upper house

Pretty much every other western democracy with an upper house has rendered it legislatively powerless. Instead, we let the minority party in ours gridlock legislation for as long as they want.

[defendandprotect]

86. How did others go about doing that -- what would it require here?

[Hippo_Tron]

103. It would require a constitutional amendment here

I don't know precisely how the rest of the world did it, although keep in mind that much of Europe saw regimes come and go during the 20th century, whereas we did not. I do know that in the UK, they passed the "Parliament Acts" which gave the House of Commons the ability to pass laws over the veto of the Lords. It's a slightly different scenario since the Lords are unelected. But still, they do it in countries where the upper house is elected.

Bicameralism is useful for gridlock. It's not particularly useful for getting things done. That's the way the framers wanted it.

[defendandprotect]

114. Do recall that the Founders -- guess I should say the liberal Founders ---

objected that the numbers in the House weren't sufficient --

and I think I worked it out once vs Great Britain and they had one rep for every

75,000 citizens and we had one rep for every 750,000 citizens!!


Guess we're saying that our Senate is basically our House of Lords!!



Thanks for the info --

[Selatius]

119. The Senate was invented as a compromise between more populous/less populous states.

The smaller states feared a legislature dominated by more populous states, since seats in the US House are supposed to be apportioned according to population size. They would not agree to such a construct at the constitutional convention, so the US Senate was instituted alongside the US House of Representatives to give small states equal footing with larger states in the upper chamber of Congress, while the lower chamber would be dominated by larger states. If the constitutional convention failed to include the US Senate in the final document to be ratified by the original Thirteen Colonies, there's a fair chance that the United States as we know of it in political form would not exist today, or it would exist as something entirely different.

The only reason more left-wing legislation failed to pass in the US was because right-leaning smaller states essentially vetoed such moves in the Senate because two senatorial votes from a small state like Mississippi could cancel out two senatorial votes from a state like California despite the fact that California is about ten times the size of Mississippi. In effect, voters in rural states are weighted far more heavily than voters in populous states. Worse yet, the US rather quickly adopted single-member district plurality as a voting system. The result is that only two parties became viable at any given time. Mathematically speaking, it is difficult to have more than two viable parties under SMDP unless you are dealing with very strong regional parties (see Duverger's Law). Over time, election laws were adopted to formalize this arrangement (e.g. election laws that do not require run-offs if nobody wins a majority of the vote). If the US had adopted a system of run-off elections in case no candidate succeeded in garnering 50% of the popular vote, we would at least have a chance at having more than just two viable parties to vote between, and nobody would be blaming Ralph Nader for George W. Bush being elected, since in a run-off Gore would've won anyway if Nader voters switched their votes to Gore in the second round.

Another issue would be the lack of public financing of campaigns. In the industrialized world, publicly subsidized elections are the norm because people rationed campaign money with "no name" on it would be healthier for democracy in the sense that politicians wouldn't feel pressured or encouraged to represent a wealthier interest over a poorer one. Not so in the US.

The US has essentially formalized privately funded elections to the detriment of the notion of democracy itself. If things don't change, it's not that difficult to imagine a US government almost totally dominated by the wealthiest corporate interests, essentially a corporatist state.

[ClusterFreak]

27. The campaign 'culture' never ends...

It's no wonder they get nothing done. The day after an election, presidential or midterm, the squawking begins right away about who might run next time. More governing, less campaigning. Get some shit done, people.

[get the red out]

28. Hate you? No, I AGREE with you completely

I can't stand it, and it is exactly why nothing ever gets done. Now it is legal for the rich corporate entities to put as much money into elections as they want, so we are really in trouble.

Personally, I don't see our country as a "democracy" in anything but name only, and the way our elections block out the sun on a continuous basis is a big reason. Politicians are beholden to the money that can get them elected and re-elected, regular people can just kiss off, we are here to be pandered to and used.

[Initech]

29. I completely agree. The Kochs are buying up our country and we have to stop them.

And the only way we can do that us to take money out of elections entirely. Or else we'll see President Mountain Dew Camacho sooner than you think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. It used to not be that way

and it is a MAJOR and OBVOOUS reform we need. The Persidential eletion cannot start ten seconds after the swear in... and it almost feels that way,

[vssmith]

31. You're preaching to the choir

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. I think a two-year term for Representatives is ridiculously short. -nt

[Blue_Tires]

69. It is...Most first-time House Reps

Really do start fundraising and whoring themselves to lobbyists from the moment they are sworn in...It's said that once most people get a taste of the perks involved with life in congress, they will do anything to stay in the sunlight...

[defendandprotect]

88. +1 --- What about limiting some of those "perks" -- ???

and Automatic pay raises, tho I think suspended this year?

[JI7]

33. the American System was set up in a way which does make it harder to get things done than in other

nations.

[defendandprotect]

91. Our Constitution is schizophrenic, for one --- but Thom Hartmann commented a while ago....

in quoting Thomas Jefferson, I think, that the government was set up to

make sure there wouldn't ever be another attempt at democracy!

[Javaman]

34. next to american idol, it seems as if campaigning also never ends nor begins...

it's just always there like bad background noise.

and I have the firm belief that people are caring less and less...about the campaigning, not american idol.

sometimes, it hard to tell them apart.

[julian09]

62. Too bad more people don't pay more attention to politics

Than American Idle or sports and mindless comedy. We need an informed electorate that will know when the politicians are lying to them and about their opponent.
We need a representative govt, not govt by filibuster, not govt by blackmail, not govt by loyalty oaths to special interests over the constitution. House should be three year terms and senate should elect the full body at once like the house and every four years with presidential cycle.:banghead: :shrug:

[Javaman]

67. ask me sometime about how I would change our election system...

I have my own theories.

[defendandprotect]

92. TV is the great distration -- from I love Lucy generation to ESPN generation ---

[Desertrose]

35. Heavens, no, I don't hate you. It's the TRUTH!

You are saying what I've been saying for years!!!

[MissDeeds]

36. Thanks for your comments

You are exactly right.

K&R

[valerief]

37. America is a mountain of propaganda built on a valley of lies. nt

[lynne]

38. You are totally right -

- and I think that the constant campaigning turns people OFF. We would probably have more interested and invested voters if we quit the 24/7 campaigning.

[november3rd]

39. It's About Money

They turned it into a racket. Corporations pay for tv ads. Media conglomerates get deregulated by politicians.

Campaigns mean profits for lobbyists and media companies.

[Harriety]

40. I'm for doing it your way. We desperately need campaign reform here.

[muffin1]

42. K&R

You're absolutely right. As soon as one election is over, the talk of the NEXT election starts. I only hope, should Obama get another term, that he will actually be the bold President I thought he would be, since he won't have another election to worry about.

[Philippine expat]

43. No offense

if we had strict 1 6year term for everyone then no one would ever have to worry about re election
and much more would get done

[dogmoma56]

44. our politicians probably spend 3 of 5 days of the week blowing some CEO for a bribe

[BiggJawn]

45. You've noticed that too?

It seems that the day AFTER Obama was elected that the "Chattering Classes" of Very Important People in The Village were getting themselves all worked up over whether or not Obama was going to get re-elected in 49 months, and who out of the hopper of worn-out same-old same-olds was going to challenge him.

Murrika's #3 past-time (After NASCAR and "Survivor") is watching the Mouse Circus.

[Citizen Worker]

46. Glarius, how many different political parties are there in Canada? Here, we have the left wing and

right wing of the Business Party.

[BiggJawn]

48. Don't forget...

We also have the Jesus Wing, the Far-Right Jesus Wing, and The ReTHUGlicans who want to smoke dope and not pay taxes wing.

Oh- and the "We're not very sure what would happen if we succeeded, but we want to destroy the Government" Wing.

[Enthusiast]

56. We also have the

take concealed firearms every fucking place wing. You forgot.

[SteveM]

64. You'll know when the Far Right is ready for permanent control...

...when they come out for gun control.

Check out Wm. Bennett, Reagan, Chas. Krauthammer, and of course the Brady Bunch. Will you be with 'em?

[Enthusiast]

68. No.

I used to be an avid hunter until I became unable to do it. But you are right. We will know true peril when the right wants gun control.

But, take guns anywhere anytime is absurd. Couldn't we allow schools, hospitals, sporting events and bars out?

[SteveM]

71. I prefer not to hijack the thread...

There are places where even gun-rights folks don't want them: Courthouses and military installations. Here, the state/feds have unfettered power to control and regulate; they are acting as the direct arms of government charged with authority, have an armed presence, and where the Bill of rights must concede, save for the "legal rights" portions.

The problem with "Gun Free Zones" is that they aren't. Dylan Klebold agreed with his father in their last conversation: Colorado's then-pending concealed-carry legislation should be opposed. I rather suspect they agreed for different reasons. I don't much care if people have guns in most areas (except where I explained) because any threat which may come from an armed person would come from a criminal, who will not follow these laws.

The bars issue is really a public accommodation issue: Most restaurants have liquor licenses; if you restrict carrying firearms in liquor-serving establishments, you restrict them in restaurants. A lawful concealed-carry citizen must go through the gyrations of removing and putting back on concealed hardware, leaving guns in a singularly un-secure place (autos), and going to a squat & gobble without a gun because they have a beer & wine license. If someone had only liquor sales, then a restriction could be implemented, though I doubt it would be effective.

[HappyCynic]

96. Parties in Canada

Not sure how serious you are about an answer but here's here goes:

The major parties we (I'm Canadian) have are the following:
Conservatives
Liberal
NDP (New Democratic Party)
Bloc Quebecois
Green

Here's a brief description of each (with my opinion as to where they would be under the US system):
The Conservatives are the right wing establishment party. The US equivalent of the Conservatives nowadays would be the average Republican (and by that, I mean to the right of the moderate Republicans but left of the Tea Party Republicans) but Harper is closer to GBW and appears to want the party pushed further right.
The Liberal party is actually our centrist party. The US equivalent would be the moderate Republicans (if any still exist) and the Blue Dog Dems and some centrist Dems as well.
The NDP is our establishment left wing party. Its US equivalent would a mix of progressives, left wing Dems, and some centrist Dems (but to the left of the Blue Dogs).
The Bloc is a regional party that is in national politics due to their size and to historical reasons. In the last election, they suffered a severe reduction of votes but still managed to get 6% of the popular vote. This sounds horrible but it's enough for almost a quarter of the only province they ran in (23.4% of the Quebec vote). In the past, their vote share was much higher and given a multi-party system, you don't always (or even often) need 50% of the votes to win.
The Green Party is a relatively new party and they have been slowly increasing their influence, finally winning a single seat in the last election. They're generally speaking, the US equivalent of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

(In the above, when I refer to an "establishment party", I mean it in the sense that they've been one of the major political party for decades and are a major component of the political landscape.)

There are a lot of other parties but they're pretty much fringe groups and have no effective power nor any chance of it in the near future (< 20,000 votes out of 14,720,580 - 0.13% for the largest group).

The primarily three party system (as the Bloc only operates in one province and the Green Party is still a minor player) has resulted in a much more fluid political landscape and limits the "us vs them" mentality. (A bigger role in this may be a much reduced sense of political identity - people here usually say they vote for a specific party rather than identifying themselves as part of the party.)

One important thing to note is that the Canadian system has several advantages that gives new parties like the Green Party a chance. Any party that manages to achieve a specified percentage of the popular vote (I think it's 3%) qualifies for public funding. Our elections have much stricter spending limits (regardless of whether you accept public spending or raise the money on your own) so we generally don't have corporations pouring huge sums into campaigns. So, with the Green Party, they struggled through a few elections before they qualified for funding (they still didn't have a seat). Then, with the funding, they managed to keep the momentum up and gained a seat.

Side note: There's no real equivalent of the Presidential vote here. Each party leader runs in their district as normal. They're expected to win at least their home riding. If they lose their seat, on top of being extremely embarrassing, someone else in their party must give up their seat. It would be akin to having then-senator Obama running for his Senate seat as normal, and when the Democratic Party comes out on top, elevating him to President.

[laundry_queen]

164. I'm going to disagree with you on the party comparisons w/the US

I live in con-land (Alberta) and I have not met a conservative yet that doesn't want universal health care. Also, most of the cons I know are fervently pro-choice. I think most Canadian Conservatives are far to the left of most US Republicans. This is how I'd classify our parties:

Conservatives - A mix of religious right and centrist, corporate Dems with a few tea party types only worried about taxes.
Liberal - Fiscally centrist dems with left leaning social views
NDP - No US equivalent. Well, maybe Bernie Sanders.
Bloc - separatist party that leans left socially
Green - Centrist dems fiscally, progressive dems socially, heavy focus on environmental issues

I agree with the rest of what you wrote :)

[jwirr]

47. You may have a point. My father always said FDR was able to do

so much just because he had 4 terms. Change does not happen fast in most cases and it is even slower when every two years we switch gears.

[Demoiselle]

51. Not offended, glarius. Point well taken.

The enormous amount of time that we spend discussing elections is part of the reason political campaigns cost so much.
And the enormous cost of political campaigns is most of the reason why few of our "leaders" are willing to offend potential donors by actual work.
Clinton understood about the nonstop campaign ...which is why he installed the "War Room" operation in the White House. They countered bullshit right wing propaganda on something like a twice-daily basis. I wish Obama had such a combative operation in place. Mostly, though, I wish we didn't have a system that required such a "war room."

[Enthusiast]

52. How could we possibly disagree?

Even worse than it never stopping is the way candidates now have to do anything the corporations want to get campaign money. It's downright horrible. It is why the nation is dysfunctional. And the corporations love it this way.

[swilton]

55. Great observation

[a2liberal]

57. Interesting idea (n/t)

[EFerrari]

59. Of course, you are right. They never stop long enough to govern.

:(

[southernyankeebelle]

60. This american totally agrees with you and wish we would go with your system.

[lunatica]

61. I hate that about this country

The fucking drama theater never fucking stops!

[SteveM]

63. This wan't the case a few generations ago...

Now, the Far Right has every intention of gaining full, permanent power. This requires 24-7, 365, decade upon decade of attack, attack, and attack. They know how to win. And they do it. The GOP didn't always do this because the "conservatism" of the older GOP was much more accomodating and willing to compromise. The Far Right has cleansed the GOP of that.

What remains of "opposition" to the Far Right in this country is murky, ill-defined, and afraid both of the Far Right and the loss of its corporate meal-ticket. As for the "left," the Democratic Party, Obama, and MSM want NOTHING to do with anything remotely resembling progressive politics, because to do so will threaten their competitive stance with corporate power and the coming corporate state. So, they, too must take on full-time campaigning; trouble is, they have nothing to campaign for and the Far Right has everything to gain.

[proReality]

65. We should be called the United States of Elections

It's nonstop and it's disgusting.

[ehrnst]

66. However, staggering elections keeps nutcase parties from sweeping into total power. (nt)

[demigoddess]

72. You are exactly right, and the politicians like it that way

We have an election every 2 years with 2 years campaign in between.

[JVS]

73. It's not our election system as much as it's our divided powers of government.

In your system a government is formed and it has time to enact its policies. When the new election comes up, the incumbent party points to its successes and the challengers point to the failures. Our government is split up and thus the different parties exercise as much authority as they can at all times. Because of that they are constantly justifying and explaining (i.e. promoting) their actions (or lack of actions) and ideas as policy is made. Often the only way to break deadlock between elections is to paint the opposition in such a bad light that they are forced to move. So everything must be campaigned constantly.

[ejbr]

74. I don't hate you for what you said...

I hate you for other reasons. :P

[avebury]

75. It seems like the perpetual campaigning is one way for Corporations

and the uber wealthy to keep our Politicians on a short financial leash. Imagine if our Senators and Representatives didn't have to worry about campaigning for several years and could actually do their job without being beholden to special interest.

[hootinholler]

76. Hate? No. More like Envy. n/t

[polichick]

77. Yes, our system flatout sucks.

[Dollface]

78. You're just trying to make us jealous. Unfortunately, running for office is an industry in the USA.

I can't be offended by the truth.

[Odin2005]

79. IMO part of it is because every state wants to have the first primary.

So for a long time we have had a vicious cycle of primaries and caucuses getting earlier and earlier, meaning that politicians have to start fundraising earlier and have to raise more money to pay for the dragged out election season.

The answer would be to have all the primaries all in a 1 month time frame in September.

[Dave From Canada]

80. I'm not sure where you get that we only have an eleciton every 4 or 5 years. We've had a federal

election every year or so for the last several years.

[laundry_queen]

165. That was a bit of an anomaly

Plus, there is only a month of campaigning even with frequent elections. That still leaves a lot more time to get things done.

[SoCalDem]

81. Oooh, we LOVE this guy (or woman) .. Yay we elected him/her.. Now, who's next.. this guy stinks

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-22-10 02:53 PM
Original message
Oooh, we LOVE this guy (or woman) .. Yay we elected him/her.. Now, who's next.. this guy stinks

Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 03:01 PM by SoCalDem
Our politics-on-steroids is doing us in as a nation. We can never get anything DONE, because we never allow the people who get elected to... ......well ......GOVERN.

The second the election is over, we seem to expect the world to somehow be different..more caramel-ly delicious..more bird sing-song-y, more blue sky-ey.

Loretta Sanchez was just on with Dylan Ratigan and she said something perversely true, without probably even realizing it.
Her comment.."Well, we're in the middle of an election cycle, so we won't be able to do it"..

I already forgot what "it" was, but the underlying message is that since we are ALWAYS in an election cycle, we can never get anything "done".

With our entire house of reps running non-stop to keep the job they have, they are always constrained in legislating boldly for things we really need, and with 1/3 of the senate up every 2 years, we are always on the verge of flipping power to "the other side".

It's a perpetual game of Monopoly, where we never get to be the banker, and we always land on Boardwalk with 2 hotels..

[Shagbark Hickory]

82. Rub our noses in it, why don't you.

[IrishAle]

83. As long as someone is making money...

As long as someone is making money off of the endless election, it will not get much real thought.

I say they should have three months before election days.

Focused, meaningful debate in a smaller timescale.

I'd also recommend a vicious limit on campain collecting and spending capped no matter where the money comes from.


I'm going to make sure and close my blinds now and avoid the windows.

[defendandprotect]

84. We have a lotta problems ... including that Congress' schedule is being set around fund-raising !!!

You might be interested in Al Gore's recent Rolling Stone article where he

confirms for us that we have a Goebbels' style press and fascism in America --

that "Our Congress is under the control of the oil and coal industries" --

though he doesn't actually use the words "fascism nor Goebbels" -- !!


Between elections our pre-bribed and pre-owned elected officials are busy serving

corporate interests -- i.e., stealing from taxpayers -- and since these people

came to power via rw political violence -- and remains in power by force of wealth

and violence -- we are where we are now ....


seemingly considereing how to take our government back from what is essentially

organized crime!!


Obviously, if citizens know all of this, certainly our elected officials have been

aware of this rising fascism for decades -- and I don't recall any of them warning

us about it!!

[marmar]

89. Exactly. And people wonder why nothing gets done in this f**king country.

I've just about had it with this cirque stupide.

[BlueDemKev]

90. One of the reasons things get done in a parliamentary gov't....

...is because you either have one party controlling all the legislation (with strict party discipline) or several parties working together in a coalition gov't to pass legislation. And if the government is ever defeated any piece of legislation, a vote of confidence immediately takes place to make certain the government is still capable of governing.

Here in America, the set up is much different. We have strong separation of powers, designed to make certain the government cannot quickly pass anything at whim. We have a bicameral legislature (and neither house is just symbolic, like the House of Lords in the UK), and both houses must pass the exact same piece of legislation AND have the president sign it before it becomes law. If the president vetoes a bill, the entire bill is dead unless both houses re-pass it by at least a 2/3 majority in BOTH houses.

Back in the '70s, Israeli politician Ezer Weiman was expelled from the Likud Party for voting in favor of a no confidence vote against the Likud Government. What happened to the Democrats who voted against Obama's health care plan last year? Nothing. Party discipline in our political system is much more relaxed. In Britain for example, you actually JOIN the Conservative Party or the Labour Party (this means paying dues, etc.) and come election time the party establishment handpicks which candidates are going to run and in what districts. In the U.S., anybody can run as a Democrat, a Republican, or whatever and candidates aren't hand-picked from the top. Individual candidates of the same party compete for votes in the party's primary election (not just the presidential race, but ANY race--congressional, state, and local) and to do that you've got to get your butt out there and fundraise, meet people, and get your name recognized. This doesn't happen in the course of a few weeks--it takes months and years, oh, and a lot of money.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

[Canuckistanian]

93. I've never understood it, either

There really is no NEED for elected officials to be in campaign mode 90% of the time. It's a MAJOR distraction and a cash cow for the media enterprises that depend on the constant demand for services.

Plus, it must be a pain to ALWAYS be watching attack ads, seeing campaign signs and commercials without rest. And not only from the candidates, but special interest groups and movements.

We in Canada have a VERY limited period where ANY campaigning is allowed - and only before an election.

[pasto76]

94. Correct-a-mundo. Only in the last decade or so

constantly. I hate it. Its why the rhetoric never stops, or winds down. The hysteria button is constantly pushed.

[ElboRuum]

95. Until we term limit the House and the Senate...

...technically campaigning never ends. Every decision and position in the House and Senate is carefully considered against the political/electoral climate. Very few votes are taken without a serious consideration given to electoral ramifications.

[certainot]

98. FYIthe last 20 years things don't get done here because the left has been ignoring RW talk radio and

has allowed a 10% minority and their well funded think tanks to use 1000 coordinated radio stations to yell loudly over all rational efforts of americans to address our problems.

because the politically active left reads and listens to music it generally has no clue what those 1000 coordinated radio stations are blasting into the earholes of 50 mil a week, over and over and ends up reacting after the right's alternative reality has already been established, usually blaming their elected representatives or fox news for their own failure to recognize the dominance of talk radio.

this started when reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine about 20 years ago and the right began buying up the loudest radio stations and putting on the same few ignorant script-reading carnival barkers, chosen for the level of royal certitude with which they can lie and using trained call screeners to make sure few real calls ever get through to challenge that certitude, and more recently using paid callers to prompt and reinforce those carnival barkers and their lies.

that's the main reason why we're fucked up, moreso than some populous rightward shift caused by something in the water, or money in politics.

[The Wizard]

131. In a nutshell

you have nailed it. The right wing's free propaganda network has mindless dupes voting against their own best interests. They appeal the worst fears and lowest instincts of our most frightened and uneducated drones. They have mastered the art of exploiting the great dumbing down.

[bertman]

99. Thanks, glarius. REC. nt

[markpkessinger]

100. Your observations are spot on...

...But it was not always thus. Sad to say, the whole concept of the "permanent campaign" gained a foothold during the Clinton Administration, operating under the advice of its advisor Sidney Blumenthal, who had written a book titled "The Permanent Campaign" in 1980. Ever since, the whole distinction between election cycle time periods and normal, non-election cycles has been obliterated, to the detriment of our entire system.

Thanks for the astute observations!

[hulka38]

101. The endless campaigning and pining/whoring for cash

is a large part of the problem. I completely agree.

[Jackpine Radical]

102. Our system is totally out of control & money-driven.

That may be why most of our politicians are lunatics. Who else would want to compete in this insane arena?

Your observations are entirely correct, and a whole lot of us are thoroughly disgusted with the whole scene, which seems wholly designed to advance the causes of our psychopathic corporations and the filthy-rich pond scum who own them. Any attempts to right the system, even modest ones, collapse quickly under the weight of the gold brought to bear in opposition to them.

[CrispyQ]

139. So true.

In a post a few weeks ago someone used Howard Dean as an example of grassroots support vs corporate support & how it could be done. Then, someone else pointed out that once the media attacked Dean with the Dean scream, grassroots support was not enough to recover from that.

The amounts cash in the electoral process will be even more obscene thanks to Citizen's United.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

104. billionaires want more elections to make more money

besides reps should be in longer than 2 years

[Rex]

105. Well, let us face facts you have a great system of govt.

While ours wallows in a cesspool.

[pleah]

106. K&R And,

the religious fundamentalists never fucking stop with their shit, either. :(

[caseymoz]

107. Yep. You're right.

And that's the least of our problems.

I need to emigrate to Canada in the worst way.

[zentrum]

109. You still have...

.....a functioning Democracy. We do not. We are hopelessly corrupted in every branch of our government including the press.

Guard well what you have and protect yourself and your institutions from the American model which has become pathologically corporatist. You have, in fact, a fascist state on your border as Mussolini would define it.

Thanks for your post.

[oldhippydude]

111. you are correct

the concept is termed the perpetual campaign... after George Herbert Bush lost to Clinton in 92, Lee Atwater, (Then head of the Republican party) instituted the concept.. the rise of the right wing media helped in the U.S., and the rest is history... the deregulation of the media, and the supreme court have helped in process..

what has developed is Republicans using a scorched earth policy, when they are out of power... with judicious use of wedge issues, and political distortions, they have pursued constant attack... while the policy obviously keeps their base angry and active, alas its lousy government!!

please be advised we are not offended by your observation, thats truly valid.. the real offense is to the perpetrators

[Beartracks]

112. "Between elections, things actually get done." OMG, utopia! n/t

[harmonicon]

113. That is a big part of the reason.

Mostly it is the advertising. None should be allowed. Oh well. I honestly am at a loss as for what to do about it.

[SusanaMontana41]

115. Hate you? Hardly!

:applause:

[Lunabelle]

116. Oh Canada!

You hit the nail on the head. We need real election reform in this country.

[Capitalocracy]

117. I think the problem isn't so much the frequency as it is the money.

More frequent elections would mean more accountability to the electorate, in a system that wasn't broken. But in our system, it means more accountability to the people who pay for the elections, and is therefore quite detremental. But I think the best solution is to fix that problem, get money out of the system, because even if they'll have to go ask for money from corporations and wealthy ideologues somewhat less frequently, the people who provide the money will still be their main constituency and the principal voice they listen to.

[LetTimmySmoke]

118. It's part of the ongiong effort to divide the middle class and civil society.

[Vinca]

120. My husband and I have one regret in our 38 year marriage.

He was a Canadian and I was an American and we made a choice about which country to live our lives in. It would be difficult to pull up sticks now, but my husband says if Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann are elected, we're going back to the old country.

[HappyMe]

121. No, not offended at all.

When I was a kid, I don't remember it always being election season. It has gradually grown worse over the years.

Nothing gets done. I also wonder if the constant campaigning hasn't numbed people to the point where they just don't listen anymore. Most campaign ads are just bash-a-thons anyway.

[Ganja Ninja]

122. I blame America's media.

The so called cable "news" networks are almost exclusively 24/7 political coverage with very little coverage of actual news and world events. The posturing and posing never end and getting things done is counter productive to the goal of getting elected. After all if you actually agree on something and solve a problem what will you have to campaign on?

[florida08]

123. "no election advertising is permitted"

It's because here capitalism runs everything. Canada is not afraid of socialism. Here corporations have such a hold on our government/representatives that anyone who doesn't preach the gospel of private enterprise and laissez faire economics must be openly castigated. Now with the tea party it's even worse. Our government is under constant pressure with threat of being removed if they don't capitulate. Keeps the country in a state of nervousness. Ridiculous isn't it.

Wasn't always this way but when Obama become president things ratcheted up. The push towards corporatism intensified. Our wealthy are spoiled and not made to adhere to our laws. Financial system has been corrupted beyond reason. The recession has brought out the evil from within. Thank goodness Canada hasn't been hurt so bad by what Wall St. did here. Right now that's the reason for so much politicking. The country is waking up to the fallacy that capitalism isn't as good as it's been portrayed..not for the majority at least.

I do envy the people in Canada and their peacefulness. We are so sick of the empire. Thanks for starting a good dialogue for us to vent. It's good for us.

[myrna minx]

124. Yes, and it's exhausting. Thank you for saying it out loud. n/t

[The Wizard]

125. With the Citizens United Decision

elections are moot. The office now goes to whoever the wealthy elites determine will keep them rolling in cash. Representative democracy is a fantasy and myth to get the ruled/worker class to believe they have some say in the matter.

[PhoenixAbove]

128. Offended? No. Jealous of you? Yes! n/t

[Bluzmann57]

129. No hatred here. Not even disagreement.

In fact this American agrees with you 100% and feels that 1- we need public funding for elections, at least for Presidential and Senatorial races, and 2- no one, and I mean no one, should be allowed to campaign until around Labor Day of the election year.

[Eddie Haskell]

130. Have mercy, adopt me!

My sanity is at stake. I need a new home. Will shovel snow for food.

[slackmaster]

132. I agree with you. The only thing worse is increasingly early display of Christmas stuff in stores.

I saw a display of ribbons and stuff that were obviously Christmas-oriented on JULY 30 in a Costco store this year.

[robinlynne]

135. We totally agree!

[orbitalman]

136. How is it that a good Canadian get it...

but has not occurred even to an American leader? :shrug: :shrug:

[malaise]

137. It's a racket

corporations - M$Greedia and the politicians at the expense of citizens - fugging crazy non-stop bullshit.

Excellent post

[Hubert Flottz]

138. They just do that to override the Real news stories.

If people knew what was really going on from day to day they'd be out in the streets like they are in London.

[CrispyQ]

140. It's one of the reasons the largest voting segment in America is the non-voters.

Many Americans are disgusted with a system that is corrupted with money & doesn't represent them.

[snappyturtle]

141. Bingo! and what goes hand in hand with the constant campaingning?

The presence of K Street! Get rid of the lobbyists!

[Romulox]

143. Read our Constitution and Supreme Court decisions; there's nothing we can do about it.

:shrug:

[markbark]

144. That's why

in America one "runs" for office, while in Britain (and indeed the rest of the civilized world) one "stands" for election.
A subtle but significant difference of language.

--MAB

[dash_bannon]

145. It's all about media presence

I suspect the Republican party is running these straw polls in 2011 to keep the media attention off of President Obama and keep the focus on themselves.

Sadly, our politicians are more concerned with image than governance.

As for things like universal healthcare, liberals and progressives need a voice in our media to get over the pro-healthcare industry propaganda... err... media dominance.

[OwnedByFerrets]

146. Right On

[tavalon]

147. Fun isn't it?

Bread and Circuses, my friend. We are a dying empire. I hope you guys don't go down with us and that we go slowly, because if we implode quickly, it just isn't going to be any fun for anyone. But as I said, until then, there are bread and circuses all around!!!!!

[mlevans]

148. It'll never happen here, friend.

Though it would certainly be marvelous if it did.

[Frank1]

150. Control

Things don't get done because there is no consensus on it. That means that we get exactly what we want as a whole not a select group.

I have a problem with giving power and control to elites.

[proud patriot]

151. It's an excellent point

[Change Happens]

152. Right on! It is not the "ELECTIONS" per say, it is the uncontrollable LUST FOR POWER!!!

This society is truly fucked up, everyone wants and works so fucking hard, to acquire more power and power stuffs which make them feel better or more powerful than their friends, families, and neighbors!!!

[DirkGently]

157. Our entire culture is in danger of becoming nothing but warring ad campaigns.

[marlakay]

158. My friend in Sydney Aus same thing

she thinks we are crazy....she had major operation and years of physical therapy for an accident on her horse farm and only spent a couple of hundred dollars. They even covered massage once a week for many months.

I would sooooo love to stop the insane constant campaigning but I think the politicians in our country love it, all the attention and money they get and of course a lot of tv stations would go out of business without the millions they earn with ads.

[SaveAmerica]

159. It feels like birth contractions that are always 1 minute apart, and I'm tired!!

I've been volunteering for a long time now and when I heard the news of the Republican debate I literally groaned. Make it stop!!

[iowasocialist]

161. Thanks for what you have said!

Great post, glarius.

Another difference between Canada and the US re: politics:

I have been following your elections for three decades, as I am a US fan of the NDP.

I have long noticed that "ordinary people" can "stand" for Parliament, at least in the NDP. By that I mean, single mothers, working people, university students, truck drivers, local activists, etc. Is this true in the other parties as well?

It doesn't cost an arm and a leg to run for office up there. Here, if you are not a wealthy male lawyer, it is much harder to run, at least for Congress.

Don't let that George Bush wannabe Harper change Canada!!

[glarius]

163. Thanks for the good wishes!....I agree with you about Harper.

He got in by hiding his right wing leanings. I hope and pray that he will be ousted in the next election.

[Brigid]

166. No offense taken.

As you can see, many of us feel the same way.