Presidential Elections: France vs. USA

[Beeblebrox237]

The US presidential election is, of course, a massively expensive operation for all candidates, and lasts for a rather long time. However, I was intrigued to hear that France's system is far more just and allows virtually anyone to run. All that dictates who wins, really, is public opinion. So here's an overview: You can become a candidate if you
a) obtain a petition with 500 signatures from elected officials
b) are a French citizen, naturalised or by birth
c) are at least 23 years of age
d) do not have any criminal record
e) are able to vote

The candidates who meet these requirements all get to campaign for two weeks, having restricted budgets and no TV adverts (they are given official time to sell theselves on air). After this period, the population votes and the top two move on to the final election. The person who wins this is now president. The entire process, from becoming a candidate to having a new (or not) president takes only a few months, a stark contrast to the US's system, where politicians start their campaigns more than a year ahead of the election. So, what do you think, which is better? Obviously, of course, there are other systems in other nations, but because of the stark contrast between these two I want to compare them. I wasn't able to find any helpful information on the way the prime Minister of the UK is elected, so I would love to get some information from the GTPers who live there.

 

[Danoff]

Here's the list for the US:

* be a natural-born citizen of the United States;[note 1]
* be at least thirty-five years old;
* have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
* A person who meets the above qualifications is still disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:
- Under the Twenty-second Amendment, no person can be elected president more than twice. The amendment also specifies that if any eligible person who serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, the former can only be elected president once. Scholars disagree whether anyone no longer eligible to be elected president could be elected vice president, pursuant to the qualifications set out under the Twelfth Amendment.[63]
- Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding other federal offices, including the presidency.[64]
Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, can become president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.

So not very different. Election doesn't take very long in the US either. You really only have to get enough write-in votes on the day of the election. You could start your campaign one day beforehand.

Minimum campaign cost: $0
Minimum campaign time: 0 days

 

[Keef]

Besides the 23 years old part. Is that a carryover from the Medieval days when life expectancy was 53 years? Then again, I would make a damn fine President.

 

[Pupik]

Minimum campaign cost: $0
Minimum campaign time: 0 days

In some states, you have to pay a nominal fee to be on the ballot, and file the requisite paperwork. It's not a lot, but more than a few paychecks for the average wage earner if they want to be electable in all fifty states. Based on the number of signatures and time expense to get all that ready, it's definately not an instantaneous process (unless you have a lot of grassroots support and/or family around the USA to help).

Reading all that makes me understand why each candidate has an army of campaign supporters, et al. But otherwise, thinking one would be even remotely successful with a write-in vote strategy is like expecting a group of monkeys to endlessly attempt to type out a novel.

 

[XoravaX]

UK's PM is basically the head of the party which has won the Parliamentary elections (of the House of Commons, the lower chamber).
So, he (or she) has to qualify for a member of the House of Commons, nothing else I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom


But what is wrong with under 35-year-old being a president, as the US doesn't allow it? If anyone younger than that is able to get support as high as is needed for presidency, I think he (or she) is also able to rule the country for those 4 years.
For example, in my country the age limit is just 18 for both Parliament and presidency.

 

[Liquid]

UK's PM is basically the head of the party which has won the Parliamentary elections (of the House of Commons, the lower chamber).
So, he (or she) has to qualify for a member of the House of Commons, nothing else I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom

We in the UK don't have a Federal Government. We use the Westminster system so you're right, we elect the party and then the party chooses its leader.

I say 'elect' the party. What actually happens is we elect one member of one party for one particular area and then whichever party has the most seats wins. The popular vote counts for diddly squat.

Why must a US candidate be at least 35 years old? Purely for comparative purposes, William Pitt the Younger was First Lord of the Treasury ("Prime Minister") at just 24 years old. Granted, it was 1783 but it's still a mighty achievement.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Back then 35 was considered oldish, not middle age as today.

But interesting to note: The writers of the Constitution happened to be around or past that age...

 

[Dennisch]

Forget elections. They need a dictator.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

So not very different. Election doesn't take very long in the US either. You really only have to get enough write-in votes on the day of the election. You could start your campaign one day beforehand.

Minimum campaign cost: $0
Minimum campaign time: 0 days

True, but you won't win. It sounds like the french system allows virtually anybody the chance to win the election, with comparatively little effort and far less money.

And yes, 35 years old is a strange limitation, although we've never had a president younger than 43 (correct me if I'm wrong). I think the real limitation for the US election is money.

 

[Omnis]

Actually, the limitation is a money limitation. The brothers Koch could wire Ron Paul or an LP candidate a couple million without breaking a sweat. The "tireless minority" idea doesn't work when you legally disallow them to use all of their resources.

With the $4,600 donation cap you've got big money candidates like Romney who get bajillions anyway. It only hurts the candidates who aren't already bankrolled by Wall St.

The two party system won't allow anyone else in because 3's a crowd. There is so much money in the parties. I know the president of the college republicans here and they get ungodly amounts of cash from the state party. It's ridiculous.

 

[Keef]

Why must a US candidate be at least 35 years old?

[the idea is] The percentage of stupid 23 years olds is much higher than that of stupid 35 year olds. Either way, the only people who want to be President have personalities exactly the opposite of what you'd want in such an office.

 

[Danoff]

True, but you won't win. It sounds like the french system allows virtually anybody the chance to win the election, with comparatively little effort and far less money.

Does it? I have no idea. Do we have someone from France who can weigh in on that? My point is that the rules look similar on paper.