02-18-2004, 05:22 PM
Hi,
To answer your question, there are a number of contributing factors that must be considered. I suspect you know some of these already, but bear with me while I try to be complete. Also, please bear with a degree of irritation. I had written a few pages of this when somehow I lost the whole post. Sometimes I have a hate-hate relationship with computers :)
The political parties in the USA are not embedded in our constitution. They came about through the natural process of people with similar agendas banding together for their common advantage. By the time of the election of the second president (James Adams), the parties had pretty well formed up into two major parties and a number of "third" parties. All aspects of the two party system (or of parties at all) are based on tradition and bylaws.
In principle, the USA consists of fifty independent States. That means that, again in principle, each of the fifty is an independent country which has banded together with the other forty-nine for purposes of trade, defense, etc. Now, this was much more the reality early in this country's early history and has been continuously less so over the past hundred and fifty years. However much the state's powers have been eroded in other fields (usually through the federal government's ability to "wield the purse strings"), in terms of their internal means of exercising political power, the states still have a high degree of autonomy.
A third factor is the size of the USA. With the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, the USA has a land area that is almost as large as that of Europe. The campaign for presidential candidate or president of the USA is the equivalent of running for head of state in all of Europe's democracies at one as far as the area to be covered. Further, the size of the country has been, until the last half century or so, a challenge in communication and transportation for the candidates.
The last factor that needs to be considered is that there is no formal method for selecting *candidates* for president (or any other elected office, as far as I know). My understanding is that a person can pay the filing fee in any or all states and appear on the ballot of that (those) states. However, since to have a hope of being elected, the people need to know of the candidate's existence (as a minimum) there are basically three ways that a "real" candidate can exist. The candidate can be an independent, running on his own money with his own support group. The last to do so in the national arena was Ross Perot. Secondly, the candidate can be supported by a "third" party. This gives the candidate a built in support group and some funds. Nader and his bid with the Green's is an example of this. Finally, the candidate can have the support of one of the two main parties. The realities of the situation, and the lesson from history, is that this is the only viable way to become president (although with sufficient votes, a third party candidate or an independent can broker some political deals, which is usually why they are running in the first place).
OK, so let's try to put this together. An independent candidate simply selects himself. Third party candidates are usually the big fish in their little ponds and everyone else in their ponds know who they are (and the rest of the nation mostly doesn't care). So, how does a member of the two main parties become a candidate? Well, sometime shortly before the election (usually early summer) there is a party convention where the candidate for the party is chosen. Each state represented by that party (in effect, all states) has some number of delegates to that convention. The number of delegates from each state is determined by the party leaders. In principle, the delegates are free to vote for whomever they wish. In practice, the delegates are usually committed to a specific candidate from before the convention. Sometimes, there are two or more candidates that are very close to each other, but neither is acceptable to the supporters of the other. In these cases, it can be that a third candidate, acceptable to both sides, ends up being the one chosen to represent the party.
So, in fact, what is going on at present is a campaign on a state by state basis by each candidate to garner the commitment of that state's delegates. Since the delegates are separate for each (all) parties, there are multiple races going on in each state (however, the incumbent is usually the de facto candidate from his party, so the part in office at the time has little more than a "rubber stamp" race for the delegates and party convention). If, between now and the party convention, the candidate with the most committed delegates dies, becomes critically ill, or is exposed in a scandal, or even if the political or global situation becomes much different, the actual candidate coming out of the convention could be someone relatively unknown. Again, not a likely scenario, but a definite possibility.
So, you see, in effect what is going on now is a series of events that, theoretically, independent. And by staggering those events, it makes it possible for the candidate to address the voters in many areas on a more personal basis than if he had to do so with all states at once.
The actual choice of candidates will occur at the conferences. The actual election of the electors of the president will happen in November. What you see now is a side show, blown out of proportion as usual by the media -- most of whom I suspect haven't a clue of the meaning of what they are reporting.
I hope I've answered some of your questions, but feel free to ask for more or for clarification.
--Pete
To answer your question, there are a number of contributing factors that must be considered. I suspect you know some of these already, but bear with me while I try to be complete. Also, please bear with a degree of irritation. I had written a few pages of this when somehow I lost the whole post. Sometimes I have a hate-hate relationship with computers :)
The political parties in the USA are not embedded in our constitution. They came about through the natural process of people with similar agendas banding together for their common advantage. By the time of the election of the second president (James Adams), the parties had pretty well formed up into two major parties and a number of "third" parties. All aspects of the two party system (or of parties at all) are based on tradition and bylaws.
In principle, the USA consists of fifty independent States. That means that, again in principle, each of the fifty is an independent country which has banded together with the other forty-nine for purposes of trade, defense, etc. Now, this was much more the reality early in this country's early history and has been continuously less so over the past hundred and fifty years. However much the state's powers have been eroded in other fields (usually through the federal government's ability to "wield the purse strings"), in terms of their internal means of exercising political power, the states still have a high degree of autonomy.
A third factor is the size of the USA. With the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, the USA has a land area that is almost as large as that of Europe. The campaign for presidential candidate or president of the USA is the equivalent of running for head of state in all of Europe's democracies at one as far as the area to be covered. Further, the size of the country has been, until the last half century or so, a challenge in communication and transportation for the candidates.
The last factor that needs to be considered is that there is no formal method for selecting *candidates* for president (or any other elected office, as far as I know). My understanding is that a person can pay the filing fee in any or all states and appear on the ballot of that (those) states. However, since to have a hope of being elected, the people need to know of the candidate's existence (as a minimum) there are basically three ways that a "real" candidate can exist. The candidate can be an independent, running on his own money with his own support group. The last to do so in the national arena was Ross Perot. Secondly, the candidate can be supported by a "third" party. This gives the candidate a built in support group and some funds. Nader and his bid with the Green's is an example of this. Finally, the candidate can have the support of one of the two main parties. The realities of the situation, and the lesson from history, is that this is the only viable way to become president (although with sufficient votes, a third party candidate or an independent can broker some political deals, which is usually why they are running in the first place).
OK, so let's try to put this together. An independent candidate simply selects himself. Third party candidates are usually the big fish in their little ponds and everyone else in their ponds know who they are (and the rest of the nation mostly doesn't care). So, how does a member of the two main parties become a candidate? Well, sometime shortly before the election (usually early summer) there is a party convention where the candidate for the party is chosen. Each state represented by that party (in effect, all states) has some number of delegates to that convention. The number of delegates from each state is determined by the party leaders. In principle, the delegates are free to vote for whomever they wish. In practice, the delegates are usually committed to a specific candidate from before the convention. Sometimes, there are two or more candidates that are very close to each other, but neither is acceptable to the supporters of the other. In these cases, it can be that a third candidate, acceptable to both sides, ends up being the one chosen to represent the party.
So, in fact, what is going on at present is a campaign on a state by state basis by each candidate to garner the commitment of that state's delegates. Since the delegates are separate for each (all) parties, there are multiple races going on in each state (however, the incumbent is usually the de facto candidate from his party, so the part in office at the time has little more than a "rubber stamp" race for the delegates and party convention). If, between now and the party convention, the candidate with the most committed delegates dies, becomes critically ill, or is exposed in a scandal, or even if the political or global situation becomes much different, the actual candidate coming out of the convention could be someone relatively unknown. Again, not a likely scenario, but a definite possibility.
So, you see, in effect what is going on now is a series of events that, theoretically, independent. And by staggering those events, it makes it possible for the candidate to address the voters in many areas on a more personal basis than if he had to do so with all states at once.
The actual choice of candidates will occur at the conferences. The actual election of the electors of the president will happen in November. What you see now is a side show, blown out of proportion as usual by the media -- most of whom I suspect haven't a clue of the meaning of what they are reporting.
I hope I've answered some of your questions, but feel free to ask for more or for clarification.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?