Zizi Papacharissi—
The 2024 US presidential elections cycle may be its shortest: 3 months. This may be a good thing. There is much about this presidential cycle that grants it a unique place in history. Military tensions rising as a global pandemic that brought the world to a halt is finally receding. A republican candidate fighting off a slew of legal battles and rivals at the same time, to emerge as his party’s nominee. An incumbent president stepping aside and a vice president stepping up to lead the democratic ticket. With that, just 80 days shy of the election, citizens in the US finally know what their options are. Any other election, they would be thinking about when or where to vote this time around, not who. What some pundits are calling a problem could have a silver lining.
US elections cycles are unusually long, especially when compared to those of other contemporary democracies. Campaign efforts often begin shortly after a president is elected into office, and social media further amplifies the need for candidates to be constantly ready for re-election. For example, former President Trump is renowned for having focused his efforts on re-election shortly after assuming office in 2017. Spring of the year before election is typically when candidates announce intentions to run. Scientists studying politics for over 50 years find that this is not too great for our democracy. In my own work, I have traced how citizens get tired, disillusioned, and progressively isolated over the long campaign. Research generally shows that long election cycles heighten public cynicism and lead to declining trust in media and institutions over time.
A long campaign costs a lot of money, and certainly more than a shorter one. Obvious as this may sound, it has deep consequences for the political process. Lobbying and fundraising efforts increase during the long campaign. Campaign donations may energize a campaign, but over time, they generate skepticism about a candidate’s true passions. As news coverage of campaign donations mounts over the course of three year campaigns, the public often hears more about who is funding a candidate than where they stand on issues.
It is not easy for the press to cover a long campaign. The daily process of a campaign involves covering the same stump speech delivered to a different crowd, as candidates campaign over the country. What is news very quickly becomes old news. Candidates reasonably want to reiterate their views with different publics in different counties. This process does not generate new headlines. Gradually, horse-race coverage is used to introduce drama into campaigns that get repetitive for those covering them. Long campaigns further amplify this tendency. It is a well-known fact that horse-race coverage degrades public views of campaigns, yet the long election cycles make it difficult to avoid.
The public becomes further polarized over the course of long campaigns. As candidates speak with different publics, they look for ways to communicate that resonate with them without losing consistency. Communication must be simple, effective, and memorable. They often resort to what has been termed false dilemmas. A TV news cycle that thrives on soundbites further feeds off these simplified, binary options voters receive. An online news cycle quickly turns these into clickbait headlines that feed that attention economy. In choosing a candidate, people choose sides. A growing public becomes more cynical, as it is left looking for more than just simple responses to complex questions.
This time around, an opportunity to experience a shorter election cycle presents itself. A three-month election cycle means that presidential candidates have to raise less because they are campaigning for fewer months. Let’s hope the obsession with who is outraising whom does not mess that up. It also implies less press fatigue and chasing of the next headline ahead. Finally, it invites candidates to spend less time campaigning and more time focusing on problem solving. Campaigning distracts incumbent presidents from the everyday business of running the country. This is more than an interesting experiment. It possesses many of the conditions required for reversing democratic backsliding. It could be an ideal election cycle and may not be a problem, but the solution.
Zizi Papacharissi is UIC Distinguished Professor of Communication and Political Science, head of the communication department, and University of Illinois Scholar at the University of Illinois–Chicago. She lives in Chicago.
The Imperial Origins of Big Data