Unpopular Candidates Make for Costly Campaigns

19/07/2012 09:20 BST | Updated 16/09/2012 10:12 BST

It's obvious from the financial chaos and moral vacuum of the past two years that Britain and America share more than a common language. They both have governing bodies that are inefficient, inactive, incompetent and out of touch with the voters and reality.

In case you haven't heard, the combined US presidential and congressional election campaigns is expected to cost $6 billion. That's greater than the national budgets of many small nations. And if the American electorate had to pay for it, each eligible voter would be charged nearly $30.

The main problem facing the America and the UK , as well as most of the developed world, is low gross domestic product which dictates employment. These aren't big enough to keep nations from importing cheap goods from abroad and laying off masses of their own workers.

So, how does this relate to the obscene US campaign tab? The Democrats and Republicans have about the same measure of credibility as the Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems. True, the reasons behind the disaffection with the parties may be different in the US and UK, but the effect is similar: national frustration with higher living costs and lower standards of living brought about by high unemployment.

Yet, in the UK campaign spending is carefully regulated and General Election campaigns only last 6 weeks not as long as two years as in the US.

The fact of the matter is, both US parties and presidential candidates are not very popular and they have to work harder to sway voters, which means spending more campaign money for TV ads and travel. This was true in 2004 when Bush defeated Kerry. With an unpopular incumbent and boring challenger, the stage was set for the first campaign costing more than $2 billion.

A similar scenario happened when a largely unknown Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. The combined campaigns came to $2 billion.

Now, with the possibility of endless high and even higher unemployment, Obama's "Yes we can" euphoria has been drowned out by a chorus of disapproval at his handling of the economy, illegal immigration and many campaign promises he failed to deliver.

For example, he promised to cut the national debt by 50 percent. Instead it has gone up by more than $2 trillion. He promised to rescue the Middle Class. He hasn't. And he promised to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay. He hasn't.

Then there is his supposed challenger Mitt Romney, until now a has-been politician whose record as Massachusetts governor seemed far to liberal for the religious zealots who hold sway in the GOP. How can someone as green as Romney lead the country? You could have said the same thing about Obama.

But, what makes collecting and spending so much money necessary is because many people now think both candidates are losers who can't or won't fix the national malaise. So, the candidates subscribe to the old totalitarian saying: If you tell people anything enough times, they will believe it. But that takes a lot of money.

Strangely America's financial and industrial upheavals seem to coincide with widespread droughts, such as the infamous Dust Bowl drought during the 1930s Depression.

Word comes that 54 percent of the US is now under drought conditions.

Yet, every year much of the East and Midwest is hit by devastating floods, with all that water ending up in the sea. Why not save it?

Another unkept Obama promise was creating WPA style public works projects across the nation, employing thousands of workers. Where are they? And what better public works project than a massive trans America aqueduct carrying flood waters to the drought stricken Southwest?

This is such a no brainer how come no politician has brought this up for consideration? Possibly its too simple and logical for politicians. And you have to think: Wouldn't $2 or $6 billion be better spent sending water to American farmers while offering thousands of jobs to the unemployed?