Do you think US Political candidates should only be allowed to campaign a max. of 12 months before elections?

Question

I am so sick of hearing about all the stupid crap that has nothing to do with the election itself. Can we shut these people up until just before the election?

Answer 1

There should be a law that limits it to 3 months before the election, but that law will never be passed because the politicians make the laws

Answer 2

I agree---I also think that the primaries should all be held in a matter of 1 day, just like the election. It was ridicoulous---it started in January and finished this month and we still got to wait until August 24-28 to find out if the presumptive nominee truly will be the candidate....so yes, cut it short, campaign for no more than 12 months and hold the primaries for all 50 states on the same day--this way we get it done and over with, know who won, and are able to move on to more important subjects.....

Answer 3

Yes, Yes, Yes.



I don't think campaigning should begin until January 1 of election year. We the people have control -- all anyone who is called by a pollster has to do is state that he or she doesn't follow the elections until after the above stated date. They will soon get the message.

Answer 4

In the interest of preserving just a tiny bit of state's rights, the primaries and caucuses on different days are fine, plus it helps to narrow the field.



As far as having the primary season 11 months before the election, that's too much.

Answer 5

I can understand your frustration at this point. However, we are making a really big decision. Its imperative that we as voters due our due-diligent to find out all we can about the people that are running. I agree change needs to take place, the change that I would propose is to mandate debates around the country, not in swing states, and public forms and to limit campaign commercials as well as dollars. The election needs to be more about getting out their with the voters. Not throwing bullets and hoping that they land, than covering yourself behind a wall

Answer 6

Well, first, there's the little matter of the First Amendment -- free speech and all that.



Second, how do you define "campaigning"?



And if you're so bored with the election, then don't watch the news. Us grown-ups who actually care will try to make informed decisions about the future of America, and you can set eating Doritos and watching Hannah Montana or something.

Answer 7

That is a bad idea. 1st of all- They usually only start campaigning about 12 months before the elections, and 2nd, because it's a waste of time trying to stop them.

Answer 8

Absolutely...or even nine months!



And there should be a financial cap on how much they can spend on a campaign to give the average Joe a chance to compete for the position and save millions of dollars that could be put to better use in this country.

Answer 9

The whole election system needs to be overhauled. When a senator or governor is running for office, he basically abandons the office he is currently holding. So he is not doing the job he was elected to do. But it will never be changed because it would have to be changed by the ones who most benefit by the current system, and they will NEVER change it.

Answer 10

well - I hear you - would be nice



but we live in a free country - with too many laws as it is



so candidates get to campaign as long as they want - part of the concept of freedom - (freedom of speech also covers campaign finance - people get to donate (although regulated some) and candidates get to spend (some regulation) that money on campaigning as part of the constitution - bummer)



we can shut these people up by - turning the channel or ignoring topics - and maybe



just a thought



not being on Yahoo Answers - Politics and Government



just an idea

Answer 11

That's a hard one.



I'm sick of the campaign, but if this one didn't start as early as it did, the media might have been able to hood-wink the general public about Obama before suspicions about his inexperience, associates and pop-culture fawning had time to settle in.

Answer 12

No because that is against freedom and the 1st amendment



I get sick of it all also so I know what you mean.

So long as I am not forced to watch it they can do what they want. I personally refuse to vote for the BS candidates, this leaves me with slim pickings in November and it usually does not include the republicrats or dempublicans. I only vote for people who act like adults.

Answer 13

No there shouldn't be a limit because that is limiting the first amendment. A law like that would never pass because of freedom of speech. You have freedom too, change the channel, turn off the TV and put down the newspaper. Don't pin this all of the media because you have the freedom to get away from it.

Answer 14

I think this election started so early because we were all sick of Bush. I hope people remember that when it's time to vote in November. After all, he's just more Bush.

Answer 15

I couldn't agree more. I too am so sick of hearing all the boo hoo and attack attack and the slandering.

I think 12 months should be enough of making everyone suffer.

Answer 16

In most countries, it's only 3 months.

Answer 17

I wish it was shorter than that.

These folks start campaigning the day they get elected and it is non-stop.

Answer 18

12 months is too long. I say all party primaries be held on the same day and then debate and then we vote.

Answer 19

hear hear!



let's shut them up until election time! we should petition to have the media report more about brangelina's babies and less about the candidates!

Answer 20

How in the world could such a rule be enforced without infringing on the right to free speech?

Answer 21

You can stop watching television or listening to the radio. That'll shut them up (for you).

Answer 22

12 months is way too long...how about 1 month?

Answer 23

No, I tend to like having a first amendment.

Answer 24

'Yes and I think even that is being generous.

Answer 25

NOPE