The Case for Shorter U.S. Election Campaigns: What Kamala Harris’s Brief Run Can Teach Us

Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign will run just 107 days—a remarkably short period compared to the lengthy campaigns typically seen in the United States. For many political observers, this is too short of a runway to mount an effective campaign and make a compelling case to voters. To put this into perspective, Joe Biden would have had 560 days to campaign if he had stayed in the race and Donald Trump will have 721 days. If Harris wins this fall, it could set a precedent for a critical evaluation of the length of American electoral campaigns and the consequences of long campaigns on voters, governance, and democracy.

American campaigns are some of the lengthiest campaigns in the world, with presidential bids often stretching over two years. Long campaign cycles can give voters ample time to learn about candidates and their policy positions, allow candidates more time to address a wide range of issues, and help filter out less viable candidates. However, these potential benefits are undone by the country’s polarized two-party system in which most voters make up their minds early in the process. Studies show that in the U.S., a significantly smaller share of voters decide on their candidate of choice in the final two months of the campaign compared to other advanced democracies, reflecting entrenched partisanship and early voter decisions during the long primary season.

By the time a general election campaign is in full swing, most voters are not learning much about the candidates. Moreover, lengthy campaigns can alienate voters and fuel fatigue and frustrations with politics. This fatigue and frustration can lead to reduced political engagement, lower turnout, and even increased anxiety and depression among voters. So it is no surprise that 62 percent of Americans were already worn out by the 2024 campaigns by April.

“Kamala Harris’s remarkably short 107-day presidential campaign highlights a pressing issue within the American electoral system: the need for reform in campaign duration.”

Along with negatively affecting voters, extended campaign periods bring about a host of political and governance challenges. The financial demands of longer campaigns contribute to the excessive amounts of money in American politics and seemingly never-ending fundraising efforts. Additionally, lengthy campaigns can distract incumbent politicians from their official duties and hinder effective governance—discouraging collaboration and policymaking as the parties avoid giving each other any political victories. For example, Congress’ inability to pass border-related legislation in 2024 was partly attributed to political maneuvering by former President Trump intended to prevent any wins for the Biden administration, and in turn, the Biden campaign.

Looking abroad, other countries provide different models for how to organize electoral calendars. In some countries, shorter campaigns are often a necessity due to flexible electoral calendars and strict campaign spending limits. For instance, France holds its official campaigns for just two weeks and conducted a snap election in 21 days this year. The United Kingdom also held snap elections this year with a 35-day period. In other countries, official campaign periods are meant to equalize the playing field for parties and limit the amount of money in politics. Following a 60-day period for primary campaigns, Mexico limits official campaign periods to 90 days for concurrent presidential and congressional elections and to 60 days for congressional elections alone. In 2023, Argentina allowed 33 days for campaigning for primaries (which are held all in one day) and 48 days to campaign for the first round of voting.

Kamala Harris’s remarkably short 107-day presidential campaign highlights a pressing issue within the American electoral system: the need for reform in campaign duration. The contrast between Harris’s brief campaign and the extensive periods typically seen in the U.S. underscore the inefficiencies of the current system. The U.S. lacks a strong electoral agency to enforce strict campaigning limits and periods, and judicial resistance to regulating campaign spending further complicates the issue.

Despite these challenges, there are promising pathways to reform. Implementing public campaign financing at the state level could impose sensible restrictions on campaign spending and reduce the excessive fundraising demands on candidates. On the federal level, adopting proportional representation could invigorate electoral competition and strengthen political parties. This approach could better streamline primary elections, potentially condensing them into a series of Super Tuesdays to accelerate candidate selection and minimize voter fatigue. By focusing on governance and cultivating a pipeline of quality candidates, political parties could shift their attention from perpetual campaigning to meaningful policy development.

While the path to reforming the length and structure of campaigns is challenging, it could bring significant benefits: reducing financial burdens on candidates, increasing voter engagement, and improving overall governance. Shorter campaigns could also lead to fewer automated texts and emails that annoy voters and contribute to voter frustration—something everyone would welcome. As we consider these potential reforms, Harris’s brief campaign serves as a stark reminder of the need to innovate and refine our electoral processes. Embracing a shorter, more efficient campaign model could rejuvenate American democracy, making it more responsive and less burdensome for both candidates and voters alike.

Follow The Thread! Subscribe to The Thread monthly newsletter to get the latest in policy, equity, and culture in your inbox the first Tuesday of each month.