SNA (Tokyo) — I love elections. It’s not just that they are the quickest and most effective way for people to select their representatives. It’s also that elections are a fascinating reflection of how leaders are held accountable in a society, and how often the ruling elites feel they have to listen to the public. Put simply, without good elections, you don’t have a democracy.

As a Political Science professor and nerd, I’ve had the great fortune to not only observe democratic elections firsthand in multiple countries, but also the honor to vote in two (first the United States, later Japan). Election days anywhere are like an extra Christmas—or perhaps (Ballot) Boxing Day—where I sit in front of the TV with a stiff drink watching the presents open. Bonus points for how the country’s media visually explains how things work as clearly and concisely as possible, lending legitimacy to the process. (Japan’s TV networks even make elections look cute!)

But I think the United States could do much better. American elections come up woefully short compared to those in, say, Canada, Great Britain, and Japan. Even a logistical mess like India (proudly the world’s largest democracy) is peerless at making polling stations available to its 900 million constituents.

That’s the subject of this month’s column: What the United States gets wrong. As the oldest modern presidential system and the self-styled “arsenal of democracy,” the Americans must do better. It’s not like the Americans haven’t had enough practice. They hold the most elections in the world.

Elections-R-Us

The United States, if anything, has too many elections. Even petty bureaucrats, whose jobs are meritocratically filled by civil servants in other countries, are subject to political popularity contests.

Consider these jobs that would be merely filled by civil servants in other countries: sheriffs, coroners, school board members, transportation district board members, justices and clerks of the peace, public advocates, mine inspectors; commissioners of land, public utilities, railroads, agriculture, insurance, public instruction, etc. I dare American readers to go to www.runforsomething.net, put in their zip code, and see what’s up for grabs near them.

To the astonishment of other democracies, the United States even elects its judges, including state supreme court justices, which unhelpfully politicizes the judiciary. Even election supervisors are elected, and that creates some pretty bad incentive systems. Since state governments decide their own electoral rules and districts, this leads to some normalized rigging in favor of one political party. (That’s a column for another day.)

Now remember that American elections happen at the federal, state, county, city, town, and regional levels. Then throw in the extra “pre-elections” in every state and territory (called Primaries) that choose party candidates for Election Day in November, and take almost a year to run. This is why at any given time, somebody somewhere in the United States is campaigning for public office.

Sounds like democracy, right? But it is possible to have too much of a good thing.

Wastefulness of Perpetual Campaigning

Since the lion’s share of these offices are two-year terms, that means that right after you assume office you have to plan your re-election.

Naturally, election campaigns cost money, and the higher up you go, the more it costs. Successful campaigns require media investment in message (the “air war”) and in the hiring of staff and coordination of volunteers to get out the vote (the “ground war”). And that’s before we consider the logistical cost of transportation, security, on-site services, and campaign swag at public rallies.

Now add in all the money that gets pumped into the media from organizations and corporations to shift public narratives in their favor, and you find out that US election campaigns are the longest and most expensive in the world.

Successful Congressional candidates each invested on average nearly $3 million in 2022, while Senators spent more than $26 million—multiples of what it cost a generation ago. And that’s before we get to down-ballot races.

Each American election has been more expensive than the previous one, even after accounting for inflation. That’s why reps devote on average a third to half of their work time just on fundraising. That’s an enormous time suck on actual legislating.

But it matters if you don’t. History shows the candidate who spends more usually wins. News outlets routinely measure the popularity of a candidate by the size of their financial “war chests.” It’s a convenient shorthand, but it means an ever-escalating arms race between candidates that sucks in everyone and everything (down to the weekly “please send $5” emails in most Americans’ inboxes).

Squirrel!

Another thing US elections suck away is attention. Like dogs chasing tennis balls served at regular intervals, media devote obsessive airtime to candidates, their rallies, their steps and missteps, and if there’s no drama, they’ll find some. In any election year, we basically have a media blackout on what’s going on in other countries, or on other meaningful issues that aren’t on the campaign ticket. All sorts of shenanigans go on around the world while the Americans are distracted.

Now the distraction is no longer limited to election years. In the age of Trump (who, as a master manipulator of the media cycle, has constantly occupied the American mindspace for a decade now), campaigns have now become perpetual.

Other countries see this as a cautionary tale. So they legally limit their campaign seasons to a few weeks and strictly enforce it.

Consider Japan. If you utter or print a poster saying explicitly “vote for me” outside of the official campaign time, you will likely be disqualified as a future candidate. Having run my ex-wife’s (successful) campaign, I know how strict it is. So the political posters you see outside party offices or supportive businesses are careful just to display a person’s name, political party, and an anodyne slogan. The hint of “vote” is nowhere.

But once the starting gun goes off, you have ten days to two weeks before the election to campaign as much as you like. Put up your posters, get in your sound trucks, have laconic ingénues in white gloves wave at people from the windows, and spout slogans at mega-decibels to your heart’s content. Just keep it all between the hours of 8am and 8pm or again face disqualification.

Japanese politicians look at what their American counterparts go through and shudder.

Nevertheless, We Persisted

Granted, many Americans would have it no other way. They’re proud of the energy behind campaigning, celebrating constitutional freedom of speech and association, while political junkies tune in daily to their favorite networks and reaffirm their tribal identities. It’s perpetual Christmas for them too.

There are merits to this system. I find public debates in the United States a lot more interesting than in other countries, with the average J. Q. Citizen being asked their opinion a lot more with all the polling, corn-dogging at state fairs, and public baby kissing. Moreover, party manifestos are de rigueur with talking points coalescing around “hot-button” issues. “What is this election about?” is a feature you don’t find in, for example, many parliamentary “snap” elections.

Plus, thanks to the extended campaigning, Americans get to know their candidates better than in Japan; the mystique of the American President is fortified worldwide after years of running a gauntlet. On the other hand, politicians in Japan are rarely quizzed in depth on the issues, and can usually get away with shallow “ganbarimasu” sloganeering. “Stay the course… or don’t,” is often the depth of thought behind a Japanese election. Offering an official party manifesto only started this century. Boring.

Yet for all the investment and energy, one could still question whether US elections are all that effective. Even in the best of times, only about two-thirds of the US electorate actually turns out to vote.

That’s why I think the shorter, cheaper, less obsessive campaigns on balance offer more bang for the buck, and are better for a democratic society.

Signs of Change?

Habits that have happened for centuries can be hard to break. The United States has held elections like this since 1796 when political parties first appeared. And since every state has to vote for candidates over the course of a year, it’s hard to believe this system can actually be rejiggered.

But one interesting precedent has just been set: the changing of the candidates at the last minute.

I’m a tiny bit smug that on Saturday, July 19, I wrote on Facebook:

Trump’s closing speech at the Republican National Convention last night clinched it for me.

It’s time for Joe Biden to bow out and let the Democrats select a younger candidate.

The GOP can go into this election saddled with and hijacked by their aging Castro-esque rambling speechifier. The Dems don’t have to be.

It’s a prime opportunity next week to have the Democrats as a political party do what it’s designed to do, and what it’s done umpteen times in the past: Choose somebody to represent the party through a party delegate election.

Call it ‘smoke-filled rooms’ Party Machine politics of yore if you want. I will call it a party reacting to the exigencies of the situation, now realizing that, as I’ve said before, poor old Joe is just all used up after four years in the world’s most demanding job.

Let’s face that reality and make the switch, starting next Monday.

Biden was obviously listening. On that Monday, July 21, he dropped out of the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris.

This meant Harris essentially leapfrogged the entire year of primaries yet became the Democratic nominee.

The chattering classes stuck in the past, of course, doubted whether anyone could rally the party behind her within three months. Despite the fact that in other democracies, this takes mere weeks (and in Britain, the transition of administrations only takes one day!).

Yet Harris did exactly that, and in about two weeks. Moreover, this streamlined campaign has managed to completely upend the race.

The American left’s pent-up energy against Trump has produced a social movement with the most energized (and surprisingly watchable) Democratic National Convention in history, and she now leads in almost every national and “battleground state” poll. And if the cynics need more proof, consider the fact that Harris’s campaign has raised the most money in such a short time ever in history.

For now, Harris has flipped the script. If she can pull this off in November, she will have conducted the shortest and most successful underdog presidential campaign in American history.

We’ll see, of course. Two months is an eternity in politics. Look what two weeks did to the Trump campaign, where all his momentum after trouncing Biden in a debate and surviving an assassination attempt essentially vanished.

Could the Harris campaign be a case for a new playbook streamlining the wasteful American political process? Condense all those years of effort into a few months or weeks? Make American election campaigns closer to normal by world standards of democracy?

Probably not, but in a campaign season suddenly running on hope, that would be one of my hopes.

Become a Shingetsu News supporter on Patreon.