Last updated: 9:22 a.m. 05/09/07
What our other readers have said:
Tired of too much politics
I think that the average American is so tired of politics. That is all we hear. We just get done with one election and the next one starts.
There is more to life and I am personally just sick and tired of hearing it constantly. The Congress hardly has time to do their jobs because they are so worried about getting elected the next time. I just turn off TV.
Mary Spears, Waterloo, Iowa, USA
Eleven months is enough!
Campaigns should not start until January 1 of the election year. Eleven months is enough time.
R.C. Birch, Tampa, Fla., USA
Less TV time = a more positive campaign
I think it is a bad idea to start the presidential race so early, because it distracts the candidates from their regular duties and divides the leadership prematurely. It also takes away media time in reporting what the recently elected congressmen and women are doing.
There should be the same amount of TV time for each presidential candidate. We have to limit TV time to reduce campaign spending so not just the rich or famous can run for president. It will also encourage positive campaign if the time is limited.
Jose Card, New York, N.Y., USA
'Save us from the sound bites'
[US elections] should be much shorter, like the British: about a month. Save us from the sound bites and spend the money where it could do some good.
C.T. Miller, Chicago, Ill., USA
'A drama without substance'
We need serious discussion of real issues that takes place in a greatly shortened time period before primaries. The primaries should be concentrated and lead to conventions where the peoples' business is addressed. This should be followed by a popular election removing the electoral college. This could all take place in a couple of months without the mind-numbing gamesmanship and obscene amounts of money that are currently being spent. We are all party to wallowing in a drama without substance which only serves those whose enormous paychecks are derived from the proliferation of the "Bread and Circuses."
Ellen Dennis, Talent, Ore., USA
A disservice to voters and a turn-off to potential candidates
What do the voters gain by having a longer campaign? If the goal is to evaluate the ideas and abilities of the candidates, I don't see any advantage in what we learn about the candidates. Most voters will make a decision that is basically based on shallow "sound bites" that sound good, but often don't mean much when looked at on a deeper level. A longer, more gruelling campaign might also discourage some good candidates who don't want to put their families through a process that is already tough enough.
Tom Hutchinson, Pottstown, Pa., USA
A waste of money, and an excuse to neglect jobs
At this point it seems like a lot of money is being wasted by the candidates. But more importantly, a lot of time and effort is being wasted – time and effort that many of them have already committed to public service, including the United States Senate.
Grant Larsen, Chicago, Ill., USA
The positive side of the long campaign season
I think it is very good at this time in our history to start early (except for the vast amount of money being spent). I think that the iron-fist hold the traditional parties have on the election and candidate selection process needed some loosening. The old party operatives have frankly gotten corrupted in some cases, and listening to the second-tier candidates is very helpful to the public to see more nuanced approaches to issues and to select more capable candidates.
...In this busy world, it is hard for people to always find time just before elections to do the necessary research and make an informed decision - the 18-month campaigning will give people a better chance to become informed. This timeframe will also allow schools and teachers to get their children involved in learning / relearning the basis of our political system and the Constitution.
Susan Mahoney, South Bend, Ind., USA
Just an excuse to beg for money
Honestly, I already have a very strong feeling who I'll support in the Democratic primary. I'm not paying attention to the debates right now. I just don't have the time or the energy and I'm a voter who actually goes out and votes (well, in my case, votes absentee).
I think it is too long. I don't see this pulling out the people who don't bother to vote. It's certainly not appealing to me, someone who does vote.
It just seems like an excuse to beg for more campaign money.
Regina Walton, Seoul, South Korea
Too early for soundbites
I think it is a turnoff. I prefer less fluff and more direct talk closer the the actual election. The candidates can have as many debates as they want, but I won't be listening until summer of 2008. The majority of Americans have a 30-second soundbite mentality and will not remember in November 2008 what was talked about during May 2007.
Janet Hershey, Inline Village, Nev., USA
Avoid all coverage until the primaries
We don't have overly long campaigns, we have permanent campaigns. Personally, I avoid all candidate coverage, be it in newspapers, magazines, online, TV, whatever. When the California primary is upon us, I'll pay attention to make my choice.
Marjory Zimmerman, Santa Monica, Calif., USA
Like a Roman circus
I feel the campaigns are entirely too long. They should be limited to the three months immediately before the elections. Candidates should be judged on their abilities and their willingness to faithfully serve their constituents – not on the amount of money they spend for advertising OR the skill of their spinmasters.
The Roman Caesars used food and circuses to keep their citizenry occupied and appeased. Sadly, it looks as though our politicians have decided that might be a good idea.
Janet Corso, Plantation, Fla., USA
Looking forward to it
Personally, I am very excited about the "ultra-long" campaign. Already I feel I'll be able to make much better decisions about candidates and I don't see why this can't apply universally. Voters are being given a very wide range of personalities and opinions in the candidates and the long campaign is allowing the candidates to get their views out sooner. If people listen, it will certainly allow voters to better decisions.
Jeff Burnor, Easton, Pa., USA
No difference
I honestly don't think the timing will make much difference either way. What turns people off politics is what the politicians do and say, not when they do and say it. Will we make better decisions because of it? That sort of implies there's a clear good and bad choice in a presidential election, when the reality is people vote for the person who appears to be most aligned with their views. No time period is going to allow everyone to agree about what voting choice is the best decision because we don't all agree about what is the right level of taxation, or social services, or what to do about health care, or when we should send the military in to destroy countries that some people perceive to be threats.
Ellen Young, Milton, Vt., USA
A waste of time and money
This format is far too long. While the idea of communicating with the electorate is beneficial, the media that transmits 99.7 percent of that communication will soon lose interest in that nothing new will be said. The result will be shorter articles placed on the back pages to act as filler and the whole process and a lot of money is wasted.
Milton Deemer, Las Vegas, N.M., USA
More is less
I'm already sick of them and I usually follow politics closely! Mostly because I know how many MORE debates await us in the next 1 1/2 years!
The problem I have is that we've already put limitations on the number of candidates more than a year before November '08. I see this as further establishing a two-party system and alienating any third-party candidates that may want to run. The only people that can afford and endure a long, stretched-out campaign like this are red and blue.
Wes Brown, Halifax, Pa., USA
