• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why a four year election cycle?

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
Why are a large amount of elections around the world held every four years?

Is it perhaps too short, leading to desperate popularising attempts to get Government departments to improve their individual fields within that time cycle (Even if it would be better for the system to move at a slow pace)?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Why are a large amount of elections around the world held every four years?

Is it perhaps too short, leading to desperate popularising attempts to get Government departments to improve their individual fields within that time cycle (Even if it would be better for the system to move at a slow pace)?
Click to expand...

Balancing responsiveness against stability. A lot of elections are also held at five or six year intervals. I think the US Constitution kind of pulled "four years" out of a hat for presidential elections (and six years for senatorial ones, but no one remembers that), and it's seemed to work for the States, so when other countries go for a fixed election cycle, four years is a good default number.
 
I think the big problem is knowing when the next election is going to be for certain.

This is how you end up with year-long campaigns, which I don't think are conducive to getting the best policy since the demands of the campaign will result in pandering legislation and the shelving of difficult policy that may be too divisive even if its necessary. The year-long election demands many more millions, which in turn means much more time fundraising and whoring out.

Of course with the parliamentary system, you end up with most elections occuring at the chosen moment of the governing party, which is the trade-off negative I suppose to having election campaigns of only 6 weeks or so... But you could still have elections if they lose confidence so its not as if every election in Canada or Britain is because the sitting PM thinks its the most advantageous time to go... or that events dont occur to make the sitting PM regret his or her choice..;)
 
Short cycles prevent the development of Royal Dynasties.
 
I think 6 years is the better cycle. It's insanity that this time next year Republicans will be announcing their candidacy for Presidency of the United States. Very entertaining, but it seems much too fast. The Senate seems to have the right idea.

casebro said:
Short cycles prevent the development of Royal Dynasties.
Click to expand...

But yet, you can't pass such an educated judgement on their policies after such a short time. You have more to draw upon if they have done more, and it allows you to take your vote more seriously.
 
Last edited:
Praktik said:
This is how you end up with year-long campaigns,
Click to expand...
Not so much outside the USA. The UK might win second prize. Dunno.

But in most of Europe, parliamentary terms are fixed (unless a government falls to bits early which happens in Italy but not very often in Spain, Germany, France, Switzerland, . . . ), and yet they have pretty short political campaigns which hardly make the news abroad.
 
Francesca R said:
Not so much outside the USA. The UK might win second prize. Dunno.

But in most of Europe, parliamentary terms are fixed (unless a government falls to bits early which happens in Italy but not very often in Spain, Germany, France, Switzerland, . . . ), and yet they have pretty short political campaigns which hardly make the news abroad.
Click to expand...

Well that's heartening!
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Wasn't just talking about the states.
Click to expand...

Yes you were.


Here's the entirety of the post from which I quoted to which I was responding:

Undesired Walrus said:
I think 6 years is the better cycle. It's insanity that this time next year Republicans will be announcing their candidacy for Presidency of the United States. Very entertaining, but it seems much too fast. The Senate seems to have the right idea.



But yet, you can't pass such an educated judgement on their policies after such a short time. You have more to draw upon if they have done more, and it allows you to take your vote more seriously.
Click to expand...
 
It's the most famous four year election cycle, but I was talking more about the global four year election cycle which seems to be popular.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
It's the most famous four year election cycle, but I was talking more about the global four year election cycle which seems to be popular.
Click to expand...

But there is no global four year election cycle. Sovereign nations make their own rules.

As for why 4 years seems like a reasonable length for many systems of government, I think that's been answered.

I was merely responding to your post that made it sound like the Senate was responsible for setting a 6 year term for its members, or that changing the term of office for the presidency is something arbitrary and easily changed. You'd need a really really good reason to pass an amendment like that. I don't think it will ever happen.

ETA: FWIW, I think maybe your primary objection is to early and prolonged campaigns. I agree with you on that. Campaign reform is another issue though.
 
Last edited:
Praktik said:
I think the big problem is knowing when the next election is going to be for certain.
Click to expand...

The gamer in me has a solution. Lets take the US in which elections are held in November. Every, say March, the Chief Justice rolls a d6. if he/she rolls a 6 then we have an election that November. If not the POTUS serves for another year.

Other contries are welcome to borrow adjusting the timing based on when they want thier elections.
 
The US system of 2 years (for all Representatives) 4 years for the President and 6 years for the Senate (1/3rd every two years) works pretty well.

The Representatives are supposed to represent their Constituants desires and as such should be on a short leash. The Senate is supposed to be looking well into the future so a longer term helps them do that with less fear of losing their jobs for short term decisions that might prove to be wise in the long run. The presidency falls in between the two. That's as much for convenience in setting up elections as it is for taking the middle ground.

I remember that more than a few times in my lifetime that an amendment was bandied about making the presidency a single 6 year term as well. I don't agree with that idea. I like the idea that at any 2 year point we can shift direction by voting the rascals out. Then again I think that having one party in absolute power in the executive and congress is also a very bad idea. We just spent 6 years of it 3 years back and look where it got us today. Bill Clintons best years were when he had a congress that opposed him so he had to compromise to get his agenda through. The same observation applies to Bush. Checks and balances work. One party rule doesn't.
 
some might even argue that two-party systems dont work that well..;)

I'm a 3 or more man myself!
 
I'm breathing some life into this thread as the Coalition Government is in the process of passing the Fixed Term Parliament Bill. They are planning to implement a 5 year fixed Parliament.

I must have changed my mind from what I posted up there ^, as I know think a shorter term (Four, Three years) would be more democratic.
 
A year to recover from the election process. Another year to make policy. A third year to run mid-term elections, and a fourth year to prepare for the next election.

So one year out of four to actually do something useful isn't bad.
 
Praktik said:
I think the big problem is knowing when the next election is going to be for certain.
Click to expand...
I think the British system where the governing party may determine the next election date pretty much at will is more the exception than the rule. In Holland, for instance, the Election Law specifies that the next election takes place at least 4, at most 5 years after the last, specifically in March (or May if there are also provincial or municipal elections). That leaves very little wiggle room, and what there is is only used to (not) sync it with holidays.

Of course, there may be early elections when the government falls. Often then, first is looked if the break can be mended. Look also at Italy - they had a lot of governments, but not so many elections.

Praktik said:
This is how you end up with year-long campaigns,
Click to expand...
That's pretty much a US-only phenomenon. Campaigns here are 2 months, 3 at the most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom