Obviously, in great Britain's recent election, nobody knew there was going to be an election until it was announced, so there was no way to jump the gun.
And the mid-terms make it even worse. De-facto the US runs on a two-year election cycle. I suspect this is part of the reason why things are so screwed in the first place.
The US is one of the earlier modern democracies and as a consequence there are lots of little implementation flaws. And any change is seen as blasphemy against the will of the founding fathers. Many other democracies either had more hindsight available when they wrote their constitution, or were more open to change
Some countries give tax payer money based on how you did previously which greatly benefits the status quo
With limited campaigns you usually run with people who are already known and have a long track record that's decently well known. The equivalent of running a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders. There shouldn't be much new stuff to drag up except their specific policies.
> Some countries give tax payer money based on how you did previously which greatly benefits the status quo
On the other hand if the state doesn't give parties money then the parties are just going to do whatever brings them the biggest donations, leading to a country run by the rich and the corporations. And you can't hand out money regardless of past performance since anyone can form a party at any time.
There is no winning solution here, but giving tax money to parties can be the smaller evil
I don't actually agree with that argument, of course. SCOTUS has been perfectly willing to go along with "time and manner" regulations on political speech in the past and I don't see why "nobody can spend more than $X or campaign longer than Y days" is forbidden when "nobody can protest the G7 summit" is. The US's free speech extremism has, in practice, turned into a delegated right to censorship. And under current SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution, the government is equally powerless to stop both speech and private censorship.
The true answer, of course, is that Trump and the donor class have coopted SCOTUS into an instrument of centralized power. SCOTUS is the scorpion[0] that stung the Progressive frog. They make this shit up as they go - free speech for me, censorship for thee. Fortunately, SCOTUS's legitimacy is in the toilet, and that power base can be broken; but it requires Congress and the President act to defang SCOTUS in a way that does not merely shift power. It needs to be distributed again.
That aside, if you're interested in US politics you might wanna look at the details of those decisions. Eg, read this section about the case that brought down Chevron deference. You'll see that pretty much any judge or jury would have sided with the plaintiffs: https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk...
Americans not caring about these issues seems indicative of the media not being fit for purpose - rather than the issues not being existential. I'd argue that the less democratic things get, the more disengaged people tend to become about the details of political and legal decisions. Since they have less influence on them and are already suffering lacks lower down the pyramid of needs.
From Sotomayor's dissent
"Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. "
What do you think of the case that brought down Chevron deference? That should be a lot easier for you to analyze. Ie. "NOAA fucked around and found out"
According to the Supreme Court, the only appropriate venue for that question is a Congressional impeachment. The only time when it looked like a President was going to be impeached and convicted was Nixon. That's why he resigned. But I doubt that would happen today. In fact, you can blame Democrats for this: they didn't convict Clinton when he was trading sexual favors, even though that was absolutely something they should have[0]. And Republicans refused to convict Trump[1] for holding up Ukraine aid for political advantage or for inciting a riot in the Capitol building. It's like if you couldn't be convicted for beating and robbing someone because you refused to sign the guilty plea.
As for Chevron deference, let us keep in mind that the alternative to Chevron is legislating from the bench. SCOTUS consistently picks the interpretation of the Constitution that assigns the most power to the judicial branch, which they have absolute control over. The ostensible check on this power is Congress writing a new law, but Congress has been hung for over a decade, which means SCOTUS gets to cowboy-code whatever they want.
[0] During the Me Too era of sexual harassment revelations Democrats started realizing "oh wait, we did WHAT back then?!" and recanting
[1] A president so nice we impeached him twice.
> the alternative to Chevron is legislating from the bench
Only when a law is unclear. Interpreting thaw is kinda why these courts exist
Others, from 1976 -- 2021: "Campaign Finance and the Supreme Court" <https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-financ...>
Anyone who uses this reasoning (I understand you’re not doing so) should immediately be shut up by quoting the inscription on the southeast interior wall of the Jefferson Memorial:
> I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
That’s as clear as can be: to honour the founding fathers’ intention, laws must not remain static.
The US has this pretty weird civil religion where the constitution is the holy text and the people that wrote the constitution are prophets.
Most other countries don't have that. A lot of democracies don't even have constitutions (UK, for example). The US constitution is an interesting historical document, but it's just a collection of laws. There are a lot of things democracies have figured out since it was written. Amendments are basically impossible at this point because the canon is closed and American politics have evolved to make it structurally impossible.
It should be possible to argue that laws should be fluid without appealing to the prophets of the civil religion. You could, you know, just talk about why it's a good idea. Shouldn't that be more powerful than trying to guess what someone who lived multiple centuries ago would have thought about it?
I’m not saying laws should evolve because a founding father said so. I’m saying that people who invoke the founding fathers’ will as a reason to not change laws should be corrected that a founding father specifically said that laws should be fluid.
Yes, invoking the founding fathers is a stupid argument. And in addition to being stupid it’s also wrong. Meaning there’s zero reason to ever use that argument and people who do can be contradicted by their own logic.
> It should be possible to argue that laws should be fluid without appealing to the prophets of the civil religion. You could, you know, just talk about why it's a good idea. Shouldn't that be more powerful than trying to guess what someone who lived multiple centuries ago would have thought about it?
Yes, you are absolutely right that it should be possible to argue in that way and discussing the merit of the idea should be more powerful than invoking a bunch of dead guys. But unfortunately it’s not. The people who shout about the founding fathers are not the ones you can convince with reason alone. You’re lucky if they pay attention to your whole argument. Invoking the founding fathers is an emotional argument disguising itself as a rational one.
Which is precisely why I’m interested in seeing what would be the reply to “but the founding fathers which you are invoking disagree with the point you’re making”. Though I have no illusions that would fix the issue, people are able contort to into extra planes of existence to not cede their point. Watch Jordan Klepper’s “Fingers the Pulse” segments for examples.
Presumably you mean in Europe, but most countries around the world are parliamentary. They have no system of checks and balances due to legislative capture; the Executive really has no power and can be trivially forced to resign. There's no real point in running a huge campaign for a figurehead that doesn't have any real independence.
Plus, it would go without mentioning that the USA is the world's largest economy, so it's not surprising a lot of money would be diverted to elections with economic consequences.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the one-month limit is by law. Candidates are not allowed to campaign for longer than that. Just a little context I wanted to add for those that are unfamiliar.
Obviously in a sense politicians are always campaigning, in the sense that they're always looking to deliver on their election promises, raise their personal profile, announce popular policies, kiss babies and so on. But that's a constant background effort, rather than an election-specific effort.
Perhaps the most important factor is the campaign spending limit; a campaign might have £50,000 to spend in a constituency with 70,000 voters and when the money runs out, they can't legally spend any more. So any money you spend early is money you can't spend later.
Also a great deal of campaigning involves the candidate physically being in their constituency, not in Westminster. So to start campaigning early would involve a burdensome amount of travel, and much less free time to spend with family.
During the short campaign period, parliament is dissolved and public servants enter 'Purdah' [1] where no important policies can be announced. Candidates can spend all their time in their constituencies campaigning - but the government is basically in stasis.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah_(pre-election_period)
The only possible way to vote earlier is when a government falls and they write out new elections but that is extremely rare.
I think you mean 5, not 4.
> The only possible way to vote earlier is when a government falls and they write out new elections but that is extremely rare.
It's not rare in many other EU countries - and even when there are no "snap" elections the there may be some flexibility about the timeline of the "standard" ones. I'm not sure that "fixed schedule is the case for most EU countries" is a good description, compared to the US where the exact date is known.