• tamal3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Smaller country, less money involved… but here’s hoping.

    Edit: I’m not sure why I’m being downvoted. Comparing the speed of the British election cycle to that of the US is mismatched. Yes, US elections are ridiculous and bloated, but that’s still the reality of them. Regardless, we’ll have to do things faster based on circumstances.

    • Triasha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      France put together a winning left coalition in 2 weeks.

      How does the US being a bigger, wealthier, country mean we are weaker? I’m so tired of these arguments about what we can’t do. If Biden dropped out 2 weeks before November it would be a disaster. As it is, he is listening to the legitimate concerns of the people.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well, the US is literally the second-most populous electoral democracy and the third-most populous country in the world, so I say we’ll need some time.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The largest democracy takes around two months of campaigning and about six weeks for voting.

        Population scales proportionately for both the number of voters and for number of people working on a campaign and number of people working at polling stations on election day.

        And let’s be honest, it’s only a small number of states that Presidential campaigns actually focus on because of that whole Electoral College thing.

        It’s just the US is accustomed to a long election cycle, that’s all. It’s not a necessity. It may not actually be a good thing as it allows time for bad actors to construct false narratives. Seems to just favour personality over policy.