Long Presidential Race Vs. Short Presidential Race
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-a-long-presidential-race-is-good-for-democracy/2012/10/05/520a1f16-0d6e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html

In  a Washington Post article written by Frank Partnoy, he argues that a longer presidential race would be more beneficial for our nation because it would give voters more time to decide on which candidate they should vote for. In his article, he points out that people have been proven to make better decisions when given more time, and they tend to make quick judgments based on appearance without taking time to look at more important characteristics. Although I agree with him that people do need more time to make a well thought out vote, their vote should not be made only by witnessing candidates "perform" over a longer period of time.

The time before elections consists of back and forth banter on which of the candidates is worse than the other and a giant charade thought out by advisers to convince the public that their candidate genuinely cares about their needs. Extending this time frame will only allow candidates to make mistakes, impressions  and argue. The only way for citizens to vote is by making an informed decision. Their decision should not be based on a couple of weeks of argument: it should be based on the actions of the candidate not only during elections but preceding the elections as well. The real problem with electing officials is the lack of informed voters. Shortening the time frame in which voters have to make their decisions should only encourage them to  get more information about their candidates previous to the elections. For example, when teams elect captains  they have the previous year(s) to evaluate the team members and elect the best candidate. They do not give you weeks to decide which team member can bribe the rest the best. Improving this country can only happen when actions speak louder than words: actions over years, not weeks.