Is the long [primary] election season in the US a reason ...

[Tender Branson]

Yes.

I mean, the Presidential campaign already starts 2 years ahead of the actual election - giving candidates way too much time to say stupid things. The long time even calls for stupid comments, to get attention by voters and media.

In Austria, the presidential or federal elections campaigns & debates starts just 1 or 2 months before the actual election.

Wouldn't it be better if the primary season, conventions, debates etc. started only in July of each Presidential year, using a compressed format - which would lead to candidates actually saying something meaningful in a short period of time, rather than spewing out completely whacko statements for almost 2 years ?

[DINGO Joe]

I think the length is beneficial in exposing wackos for being wackos.  In a short time frame a loony my keep it together and then they get 4 years. 

[President Johnson]

No, but I think it is too long. And a presidential term is too short. It should be five years.

[angus]

Wouldn't it be better if the primary season, conventions, debates etc. started only in July of each Presidential year

Better for whom?

Better for pollsters and prognosticators, who make a living on uncertainty?  Better for television news networks, who sell ad space during debates?  Better for marketing executives and campaign managers?  

Capitalism feeds the lengthy process, and the process feeds capitalism.  Everybody wins.  


Okay, serious answer:  Yes, constant campaign mode is annoying.  I'm for one-term, five-year presidencies.  That way, a president needs never campaign while he is in office.  Also, there's no pandering for the sake of political personal gain.  

However, I'm not sure you can legally stop them from campaigning for two years prior to that election.  The common interpretation of the first amendment is that free speech includes the right to televised debates, etc.  And as far as 30% or more of the American electorate supporting some psychopathic liar or greedy robber-barron, without bothering to think critically about what was said, then I'd say that we should get what we deserve.
  

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Tbf President of Austria is a meaningless job.

[Torie]

The reason is that states compete to be early in voting, and other states such as CA want the primary to coincide with its primary for other offices, which is held in June. Federalism tends sometimes to end up with a system that is rather dysfunctional, silly, and incoherent.

[Mr. Morden]

The length isn't the issue so much as the fact that there are primaries at all.  If the nominees were decided in smoke filled rooms, then you wouldn't have candidates like Trump and Carson in the mix to begin with.

[Kingpoleon]

Wouldn't it be better if the primary season, conventions, debates etc. started only in July of each Presidential year

Okay, serious answer:  Yes, constant campaign mode is annoying.  I'm for one-term, five-year presidencies.  That way, a president needs never campaign while he is in office.  Also, there's no pandering for the sake of political personal gain.

What about six year terms, a maximum of three,and no consecutive terms? Wouldn't that be a lot easier and fairer to the great people who are willing and able to serve as President, both Republican and Democrat? That way, when a great national crisis happens at the end of an inexperienced person's term, a former President can step in and restore stability with up to twelve years of prior experience at the same job.

[angus]

Sure, six years is okay too.  The single, six-year presidential term was proposed and rejected at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but I like it.  Carter advocated for it as well, on moral grounds.

Generally I'm not for term limits for legislators, but I am for longer terms.  I do think, however, that the executive should be limited in a way that prohibits campaigning while in office.  Your amendment of allowing non-consecutive terms would satisfy this criterion, and eliminate incumbent advantage.  Still, it allows an incumbent to maintain practical power indefinitely.  Look at Vladimir Putin.  Your proposal might allow someone take office for six years, then designate a puppet for six years, then serve for six years, then designate a puppet for six years, then serve for six years, effectively governing for 30 years.

[Slander and/or Libel]

If the population wants that person in charge for 30 years, it's difficult for me to understand why we should view it as de facto bad. Re-elections are referenda on performance, and term limits withhold what might be a legitimate choice of the voters, presuming the incumbent would still want to run.

[SillyAmerican]

Okay, serious answer:  Yes, constant campaign mode is annoying.  I'm for one-term, five-year presidencies.  That way, a president needs never campaign while he is in office.  Also, there's no pandering for the sake of political personal gain.  

I agree with Angus, but would make the President's term 6 years, to control costs (by keeping it in line with congressional elections). A single 6 year term is long enough to get something done, and freeing the person from needing to campaign might actually increase the likelihood of having reasonable policy discussions every Presidential election cycle.

[SillyAmerican]

If the population wants that person in charge for 30 years, it's difficult for me to understand why we should view it as de facto bad. Re-elections are referenda on performance, and term limits withhold what might be a legitimate choice of the voters, presuming the incumbent would still want to run.

The main reason for needing term limits is quite simple: the playing field is simply not level. Incumbents enjoy the name recognition that comes along with holding office, which in turn makes it a whole lot easier for an incumbent to raise the money to get re-elected. The result? Historically the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time. When you have Senators taking the same seat for over 50 years, it's a bit much. I believe the founding fathers would have liked to have seen a reasonable turnover in these positions. That's not to say that someone couldn't run for different offices, just that they wouldn't be able to monopolize the same position just because the electorate are basically sheep.

[ProudModerate2]

.... giving candidates way too much time to say stupid things. The long time even calls for stupid comments, to get attention by voters and media.

.... rather than spewing out completely whacko statements for almost 2 years ?

I think the length is beneficial in exposing wackos for being wackos.  In a short time frame a loony my keep it together and then they get 4 years. 

Hmmmmmm.
Are you referring to Trump ?

[Slander and/or Libel]

If the population wants that person in charge for 30 years, it's difficult for me to understand why we should view it as de facto bad. Re-elections are referenda on performance, and term limits withhold what might be a legitimate choice of the voters, presuming the incumbent would still want to run.

The main reason for needing term limits is quite simple: the playing field is simply not level. Incumbents enjoy the name recognition that comes along with holding office, which in turn makes it a whole lot easier for an incumbent to raise the money to get re-elected. The result? Historically the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time. When you have Senators taking the same seat for over 50 years, it's a bit much. I believe the founding fathers would have liked to have seen a reasonable turnover in these positions. That's not to say that someone couldn't run for different offices, just that they wouldn't be able to monopolize the same position just because the electorate are basically sheep.

Name recognition is an advantage that lots of people have without being incumbents. Hillary Clinton enjoyed massive name recognition when running for Senate in 2000, for instance.

Sometimes incumbents are re-elected because the people doing the electing like them and want them to keep representing them. It seems entirely artificial and arbitrary to put limits on the population's ability to choose their representation.