The long slog is one reason why we have such abyssmal participation, you do realize. People get fed up of it being a constant focus of the news cycle and inevitably just stop caring as much as they would otherwise. Just look at Canada.
Looking at Canada I see a substantial difference in the lack of primaries to select the party nominees. That alone makes for a much shorter campaign. However, I don't think the US public wants a return to nomination by party elites - just look at the debate over Dem superdelegates.
This.
I don't realize that at all, Buckeye. In fact I quite disagree.
Also, we didn't seem to have abysmal participation in 08 on the Dems side, and participation has held fairly steady in the backfield this cycle.
Frankly, without Super Tuesday and March 15, I think participation would have been enhanced (at least on Sanders' side).
The US has an inordinately long election process that people hate. Our neighbors to the north, and our chums across the pond, both have far shorter election processes and greater turnout overall.
There's a study I'm looking for that further corroborates this idea, but I cannot find ATM. Hopefully, I can post it sometime in the near future.
Also, nowhere did I advocate for more involvement from party elites in choosing the nominee.
I understand that you did not advocate for more involvement from the elites. However, one of the biggest drivers of the long election process is the very public primary. A public primary requires a lot of advance organizing and campaigning, since most candidates start only known to party insiders or political groupies like us.
Other countries avoid the lengthy campaigns by letting the party pick their nominees from the inside. That inherently leads to party elites picking a nominee, unless one wants a public primary that is entirely driven by whichever candidate has the best name ID before the election cycle starts. I don't think Obama would be president today but for the long primary season.
