After what seems like years of nonstop campaigning, speeches, rallies and visits, the presidential election is finally over.
I don't think it is necessary to do all that campaigning. The constant, in-your-face "I approved this message" commercials and news coverage is exhausting and, frankly, obnoxious.
When running for prime minister in Great Britain, candidates are only allowed to start campaigning three months before the election. They have a cap on the amount of money they are allowed to spend on their campaign, and anything they put out on the streets, in yards and on buildings has to be taken down almost immediately after the election.
I want to know why America has not adopted this mindset when it comes to elections. Honestly, think about how much money President Obama and Gov. Romney spent on their campaigns. Then, think about how often they both talked about the significance of the national debt.
In a Nov. 4 article "2012 ad blitz: big money, smaller audience" by Beth Fouhy from Businessweek showed that Romney and Obama's combined television ads cost more than $1 billion. That is $1 billion just on one million television ads, not the total sum spent on the entire campaign.
And, that sum does not count the money both spent to pay their campaign staff, travel and buy their promotional items such as T-shirts, yard signs, buttons, etc.
Obama wants the rich to "pay a little more" in taxes to help the national debt, and Romney wants to cut unnecessary spending from the budget. However, if each candidate had given what he spent on campaigning to the government to aid the national debt, imagine how much that money would help.
Both men are independently wealthy, and both are hypocritical and irresponsible to spend the amount of money they did on their campaigns. Especially after preaching their strategies to decrease the national debts, they turn around and spend billions.
The old cliche works nicely here: actions speak louder than words.
I'm also happy the election is over because it means I'll stop hearing about celebrities who suddenly think they're the experts in politics.
After almost two years of campaigning, it is finally over. Bandwagon politicos will go back to caring more about what ridiculous thing a celebrity did for attention this week instead of pretending to be experts on each candidate's policies and character.
The entire campaign process is filled with ridiculous notions about how to gain voters. Focusing on niche groups and trying to put down the opposing candidate, the election has turned into more of a popularity contest.
I couldn't care less if the president of the United States is popular. I want a president who knows what he or she is doing, someone who understands the economy, the military, foreign policy, domestic affairs and the Constitution.
I'd rather hear the truth and what they plan to do.
The election has progressed to the equivalent of a two-year campaign for popularity. The amount of time and money spent on being elected is inconceivable.
So, yes, I think the British have it right. There should be a limit on the time allowed for campaigning and a limit for funds. That way, politicians spend time actually doing their jobs instead of thinking ahead to the next election.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
