surely bespeaking an election?

[Guest Peeves]

"An invading force is laying the groundwork for a coup in the United States this year, and it's going on right under our noses."

..............and that could caption the political arena in the US of A.

But it's from the link on stink below...

Fortunately we have Canadian channels to watch, but I am amazed,,,, nay, rather dismayed at the money/media time spent on electioneering. The vitriol, dirty tricks, the MONEY$$$$$ It's disgusting. It's worse than the Olympics, Worse than the UN. Worse because it hardly matters who wins!.

I recall the rancor between Hillary and Obama, then they become mates on the hill. (no pun intended.)

Can anyone honestly justify the amounts of money spent over the election(s) period?

To me it stinks, it bugs me, :angry: just another variety of stink invasion.

Is there any guilt felt for the expenditures when every American owes $ 17,000 on the debt?

Do you Americans here justify the money spent on elections?

Canada I'm sure is far more restrained and over a much shorter time span of electioneering. Canadians are so much more parsimonious by nature.

http://news.yahoo.com/stink-bug-invasion-promises-foul-fall-204016553.html

The link just for a lead in.....

Edited October 7, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest]

I'm glad I live where it's cold.

Except when I'm not, of course. Come January I might swap a stink bug infection for some relief from the -20 temps.

[jbg]

The problem is fixed election dates. Fixed election dates, in turn, solve the problem of snap elections called at favorable times. Thatcher and Chretien made that an art form. In a majority government, where election dates are not fixed, the PM can "advise" the Governor General to call an election at a time good for him or her. Chretien was first elected PM in the November 1993 election (yes, I know it was his party but I'm using shorthand). He called an election, I believe, in April 1997, or about seven (7) months short of the traditional four (4) year length of a mandate. Next time around was November 2000 (which Day was surging in the polls), or around five (5) months short. The next time around was less egregious since Martin, by tradition, sought (and did not obtain) his own majority mandate. I recall similar antics on Thatcher's part. So fixed elections, at least applicable to a majority government, solves that problem.

In the U.S., however, we have always had fixed elections. That gives a fixed target to aim at. Until 1968 this wasn't much of a problem. In that year, Eugene McCarthy came close enough to winning the (then early) New Hampshire primary that everyone had heretofore ignored to force Lyndon Johnson to exit the Presidential race. In 1972 the candidates were stomping their snow boots in New Hampshire for about two (2) months before the March primary.

Jimmy Carter, who could not expect to do well in New Hampshire, then fastened on the Iowa caucuses (more similar to Canada's EDA [i think that's the right term for riding caucus] meeting), which were in, I believe, early February 1976. His lead there gave him enough momentum to survive a humdrum New Hampshire result to go on to victory. At that point, Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida started playing tag to be "first". Thus, the campaigning has started earlier and earlier.

I don't know that there is a fix or happy medium between the manipulability of "snap" elections and the perpetual campaigning of "fixed" elections.

[bleeding heart]

I don't know that there is a fix or happy medium between the manipulability of "snap" elections and the perpetual campaigning of "fixed" elections.

It's true. At the risk of platitude or fence-sitting, I think it's clear that both systems have their benefits and their drawbacks.

[jbg]

It's true. At the risk of platitude or fence-sitting, I think it's clear that both systems have their benefits and their drawbacks.

Thanks for the compliment.

What I forgot to mention is that with the almost absolute First Amendment the length of a campaign is beyond government regulation. I suppose that Elections Canada, on the other hand, can find ways to prevent the next campaign from starting during the Spring of 2014 (for the upcoming May 2015 elections since you now have a majority government within the fixed election law). So maybe Canada will lead the way towards a happy medium.

[The_Squid]

I think most of the problem comes from so-called "freedom of speach" rulings that have allowed unlimited sums of money to be spent in the USA on elections.

Harper took a huge step backwards with rescinding public funding of political parties in this country. These types of measures limit the influence of money.