To: NormsRevenge
2 posted on
10/15/2003 2:24:42 PM PDT by
DoctorZIn
To: NormsRevenge
Oh boy, do I agree on shorter elections.
These 2-yr campaigns are disgusting.
However .. it would not allow the "unknown" to get known. I think that would favor the incumbent waaaaaay too much.
3 posted on
10/15/2003 2:58:34 PM PDT by
CyberAnt
To: NormsRevenge
It would better to cut the amount of the time to three months. One to nominate candidates and two to campaign in the general election. Countries with parliamentary systems typically take four weeks to choose a new government. The time for Ontario's recent provincial election was a mere 30 days from the dissolution of the outgoing provincial parliament to the day the voters elected the new one. Our elections won't probably be that short but there's no reason we can't have elections in a 90 day cycle. California's recall election demonstrated it can be done.
4 posted on
10/15/2003 7:00:30 PM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: NormsRevenge
... the essential issue: Gray Davis' mismanagement of the economy... Revisionist cad! I never heard anyone blame the, soon-to-be, ex-governor for a slowly recovering economy. His crimes were much more personal: corrupt, pay to play, politics; abrogation of leadership in the face of difficulty; and betrayal of fiduciary trust.
Oh yeah, and hiding behind the skirts of a complicit press.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson