Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs the US primary election season too long?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 26% | 55 votes | Total: 211 votes | |
| Yes | 74% | 156 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe length of the primary election season within the United States of America gives me the impression that the candidates work harder to win the election than they work within the Oval Office of the White House. Yes, they have a whole lot of time in which to tour the Country and meet with as many people as they can. So too, they get a very good idea of what they have to do for the people who support their election campaign. In that regard, the primary election season should be twice as long as it is.
You see, if the majority of "We People" have more time to get our message of what we want into the heads of each and every candidate, well, maybe whoever is elected will actually do some of what "We People" want them to do.
Well, in so doing, each and every one of them wants to give the voter the impression that they are somehow different from the other people who seek the same job for, "We People of the United States of America." That being: President of the United States of America.
After months of hard work one of those candidates will be the next President of the United States of America. They get a whole lot of money to do so, and for that money they have to do a whole lot for the people who give them the most money or work for their election. You see, some people are rewarded with Federal or State jobs for their service to the person who they believe will win the election. Then again, Party support also means that the candidate will have to conform the to Party platform and also the wishes of the majority of the other members of that particular Political Party.
Yes, and for those very reasons it is easy to see why the winner doesn't keep all of those sworn campaign promises to the majority of, "We People of the United States of America." None of us paid millions of dollars in order to influence the winner to keep us healthy and alive, or to make us even richer than we were the day before. The best that any of us can do is work for the candidate's election and then hope that one of those high paying Federal or State jobs comes our way.
This election year a record amount of money was, and still is being, given to those remaining people who seek the position of "The number one symbol of Democracy." Then again, the rich are getting richer. The greedy are more greedy. The heartless are more heartless, and the self-serving are more self-serving.
As a matter of fact, none of the candidates said much about the most serious issues that now face the majority within our Country, and also the people of the rest of the World. Yes, we certainly do need more time in which to tell each and every candidate exactly how much good that they should do for us.
Instead, each and every campaign within recent memory became nothing more than a contest to see and select who is the best looking or the most witty person. Soon it will become, if it hasn't already started, the person who can sling the most mud at the other candidates. Well, that isn't a solution to the true problems that need fixing for us and also the rest of the World's people.
You better believe that the person who does win the election will support the richest people on Earth. That's why things truly are as bad as they are for the majority. Who will vote for in 2008?
Learn more about this author, Joseph Malek.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Our primary season is definitely too long these days. We are inundated with opinion, polls, news bytes and endorsements. Every cable news channel feels they must make news' enough to fill at least 15hrs a day with political rhetoric. Candidates spend millions upon millions of dollars clawing their way into the public eye. The process has actually become detrimental to our representative republic.
The danger in this extended and over-hyped extravaganza is that it all detracts from true democratic process: media has taken upon itself to determine the candidates and select the winners. This process has gone on for at least 30 years, but the advent of the dedicated cable news channels has allowed it to become considerably worse. Forty years ago, the American people were bamboozled by the likes of Walter Cronkeit and Eric Sevareid twisting the truth to promote their personal political agendas. When this was exposed, the citizens were shocked, dismayed and rightly felt betrayed. Now, the viewing audience-and that means most of us-naively accept the right of the news stars' to promote their own agenda and don't even question this bending of the truth to achieve political ends. The upshot of forty years of opinion-as-news has resulted in two generations of Americans who no longer appear capable of formulating an opinion of their own based on their own beliefs and value systems: they are incapable of differentiating news from political posturing.
Unfortunat ely, this over-emphasis on political positions tends to make the voter numb. After endless months and never-ending campaigns, the voter naturally tunes out everything but the carefully-crafted sound byte. And the sound bytes are deceptive, over-simplified and mis-leading. Advertising costs on major media are hugely expensive, forcing candidates with the biggest dollars behind them to the top of the fray. Candidates with better ideas, but less money naturally get less media coverage. The length of the election season' ups the ante in terms of advertising dollars-and dollars garner exposure. This forces less well-financed candidates out of the race before their message can be heard. The force of big dollars tends to buy influence in areas that benefit certain segments of society to the detriment of others. It can safely be said that our top elected officials for the past 20 years have been elected primarily by self-serving business and financial interests to the extent that the harm to the country is now quite evident and may well lead to the disappearance of a healthy middle-class.
The extended length of the election season allows the news media unlimited opportunities for polls, in-person interviews and man-on-the-street reporting. They love it-most of the rest of us are less then enamored with it. The lengthy campaign' allows media the opportunity for endless debates' that selectively include or ostracize candidates based on the political stance of corporate executives, owners and advertisers. As these are the same entities that are funding the high-dollar campaigns, there is naturally a desire to present their chosen candidates in a more flattering light and to either exclude or ridicule candidates whose platforms are less advantageous to them. Such slanted reporting serves the common man poorly and disenfranchises the voter who has little access to, or knowledge of, candidates other than those promoted by their favorite talking head'. These alternative candidates often would provide a better campaign platform to serve the middle class but have already been relegated to third-tier (class) position. Their less-well-endowed war chests are quickly out-spent by the high-dollar candidates due to the artificially extended primary season. Twenty-four hour dedicated news channels have morphed into the new 'bully pulpit', and they unabashedly make maximum advantage of the extended election cycle.
The populace at large would probably be much better served by a shorter election season, one that allowed more equal access to all candidates regardless of either their well-placed friends or personal fortunes. Relegating the new media to their rightful place as reporters, not controllers of news certainly wouldn't hurt, either!
Learn more about this author, Linda Sunkle-Pierucki.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Should voters have to pass a civics test to be able to vote?
- Parents should be allowed to cast as many votes as they have children
- Does the press pick presidents?
- Should Congress create laws to prevent political mudslinging in US elections?
- Should members of Congress be allowed to add earmarks to appropriations bills?
- Should the US adopt a different method of electing its president?
