this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
519 points (92.6% liked)
People Twitter
4850 readers
1563 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The nearly endless campaign cycle seems tailor-made to wear us out. Wouldn’t it be nice to have it for two weeks max and then vote and be done with it? Everyone already knows how they’re gonna vote, don’t they?
You needed that much time before TV to travel the US because it was so large. With the information overload age, that is definitely not a problem anymore as everyone can see every rally and debate remotely
Yeah, French and British showed us we don't need that much time.
Their territory is also extremely small though so in a week you can cover a lot of places to hold assemblies. Candidates will still want to show up in most States at least once so a month and a half is pretty much the minimum...
Other way around. At 4th largest and 3rd most populated country in the world, the US is extremely oversized and should really be broken up like the banks should.
Which is just empty pandering that most voters see right through.
If asked whether they would prefer a campaign stop or an extra week working on policy that helps their state, reasonable people choose the latter every time.
You've made assumptions that I think matter.
Yeah but the voters who don't, the voters who can change their mind, are the ones who need that. They're not doing it for the 90% who see through that, they're trying to convince the last 10% to vote for them.
Same thing. They're not going after reasonable people. We've see recently how many people don't care about policy and only care about how the character is displayed
Even if this is true, it is false. This is what lost Hillary her election. She took some easy blue states for granted and they gave us Trump instead.
Empty pandering, sure, absolutely. But voters need to see the person they're electing. They need that person to come to their area and tell them that they know we exist. The personal touch will make or break a real election, and that's because humans are dumb, panicky, emotional animals.
French and British territories are very small, keep up with the discussion buddy.
They aren't, no. Keep up with geographical trends, pal.
USA: 9 525 067 km²
France: 549 087 km² (5.7% of USA)
UK: 243 610 km² (2.6% of USA)
There's a reason why the last two can easily be covered in two weeks of electoral campaigning. They are small.
Again, no. Your perspective is skewed. You're comparing a gigantic country with two of pretty regular size compared to most countries and drawing the false conclusion that it's the latter that are abnormal.
Besides, it's absolutely not necessary to do a physical tour of the country. Multiple types of mass media exist to eliminate that outdated form of outreach.
There are electors who are catered to by going to see them in person, they won't vote for you if you don't show up in their State or even in their city.
I never said they're abnormal, I said their small compared to the USA and that is therefore not surprising that they can hold an election in less than a month.