• The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t think anybody actually wants our elections to be perpetual. I imagine it’d be easy to fix, except for the fact that longer elections cost more and this means the richest have more sway. I bet they’d resist.

    • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Time to stop handing control of society to rich people who lack experience of being a normal human being.

    • aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      That, plus like everything else in America, an entire business has sprung up around running federal elections. Longer campaigns require more staffers, strategists, pollsters, advertisers, etc. It’s a billion dollar industry unto itself.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think the parties and the companies that own them want the elections to be perpetual, to keep us distracted and fighting each other. It also gives the companies a lot more time to bribe donate to candidates.

    • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Honestly, if it wasn’t one of the most powerful and influential countries of the world, it would be helluva entertainment. I’d invest in popcorn stocks.

      On the other hand, if it wasn’t one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world nobody would care.