Questions about the voting system in USA

[Jarulf]

I have always been a bit amazed about the system of electing a President in the USA. Admittedly, I am not aware of all the details and one of the questions would be to get some more information, but any way.

How can a election system be fair and good, were people vote “a few” at a time, and were they are told what the result of previous people voting are? A system were candidate can drop out after a while, thus completely altering the choice for voting for later voters, with possible drastic changes in the result. On top of that, the time frame is quite dragged out so that other things, events, information popping up along the way, may also affect peoples views and change the voting. In addition, those unlucky people “voting” at the end, are almost always aware that their votes really doesn’t matter since the result of almost everyone else is already known. How could such a system be considered fair and good and be considered OK for a “democratic” (not in the sense of democracy, republic, monarchy, whatever, but as opposed to dictatorships for example) nation? What am I missing? The fact that in this particular case the “a few at a time” happens to be the same as those living in the same state doesn’t alter anything in my opinion. So any clarification or information would be appreciated.

On a more informational issue, it is my understanding that, at least in the actual election for a president (which will be this fall, no?) the winner of a state would get all the “votes” from it. How would that, work out when there is more than 2 candidates. I can see that in the final voting one can do multiple rounds, like is common in many countries when electing presidents, but in the voting of the public in the individual states, there seem to only be one round, how do one handle multiple candidates (more than 2) there?

Well, that is it for now. I am sure more questions will come when I get some more input on this whole thing which to me seems very strange and not the way elections should be done.

[eppie]

As a non-US citizen I can not help you too much on this subject. I am replying because I have also wondered this very often. I think the main reason and benefit of this sytem is that you after the elections have no problems forming a coallition, you can more or less directly start governing.
But like you, I see more disadvantages then advantages of this sytem.

First the way the candidate is chosen (now the democratic one) is strange. I think you are right in saying that the last peoples votes don't count so much, and that the first state is very important. Now, senator Kerry is winning almost all of the states. I think the results would be different if let's say Dean won the first state. People tend to vote more for "other peoples opinion" then for their own, I think.
(then the strange thing in I believe Wisconsin where also republicans could vote for the democratic candidate). It would seem more logical that members of a certain party would cast their votes by mail (or at a meeting), all at the same time.

At the presidents election: after last elections it became clear in a painful way that the system of all votes in one state going to the winner (I forgot the name), is at least highly questionable. You can become president of the most powerful country in the world without being chosen by the majority.

Than I would like to add some questions in your post (I don't know if this is done/allowed, if not please ignore my questions).
Is it true that before you can vote, you have to register yourself somewhere as a voter (and that this costs money).?

And do you think that a candidate not backed up by representatives of large companies (so also does not get any campaign money) ( in other words really represents normal people) makes a chance of becoming president of the US?

eppie

[NiteFox]

"If voting changed anything, they would abolish it."
- Ken Livingstone, Elected Mayor of London

Seriously though, this interests me too.

[Kevin]

I am not the best qualified to answer all these questions, but I will take a stab at some of it.

First, the system has issues, I don't disagree with that at all. Second, the system is rooted in history, and one of the older democratic systems as well. It is also one of the oldest systems that wasn't born of something else. When it was created it had to take into account the huge size of the country (even the original 13 states was vastly larger than most other nations at the time and was the largest democratic nation) and the slow speed of information travel. It could literally take weeks for information to get from one state to the capital. The system was designed to try and answer some of these problems.

So you have an electoral college. Each state has electors (I don't know how they are appointed), and those electors don't actually have to vote the way the populace votes, there isn't anything legally binding about it on a federal level. There are usually "protest" electors who will cast their vote differently than the state populace vote. Some states have laws that force the electors to cast their vote for the most popular candidate. Some will proportionately split the vote. But the idea behind the college was so that Joe Frontiers man who couldn't get to a city could still tell his elector who he thought should be president. The electorates were also more informed about the canidates as well. Then the electors would take their week or whatever to get to the capital and then the voting would happen, all at one time. This is still technically what happens but you never hear about it. The original system also had the person recieving the most votes as president and the 2nd leading vote getter as vice president, this is elector votes again. But a lot of this was done to overcome distance and communication issues. The federal government didn't have a lot of power. The power was with the state governments, and the local governments. No other county had to deal with issues like this. The only countries comparable in size at the time were Russia and China, and they had dictatorial types of governance.

So as to a third party canidate (and there are tons of them, I had 12 choices for president in the last election on my ballot, other states had more or fewer depending on if the canidate got enough backing in that state to make the ballot) if they get more votes in a state, the electors will most likely cast their votes for president for them. Otherwise it doesn't really matter.

The systems hasn't really grown with the times, but then again what government changes anywhere to rapidly evolve? With modern technology and high speed wide spread communication (that really has only been around for the last 50 or so years) things could change, and they are. The system was also designed without the ideas of political parties in mind.

I could say more, but I have to get to work, and as I said there are better qualified people out there. But I had to point out that you can not consider this system without considering why it was developed and the unique issues faced by the designers.

[Occhidiangela]

First off, as an American, I don't much care how you think our elections should be done, you don't live here. We Americans don't much care for monarchies, the European model that it took two world wars to break. You are all most welcome for our assistance along those lines. IIRC the Swedes were nice enough to supply Hitler with the Heavy Water for his Atomic Bomb project. Boys will be boys, I suppose. :unsure:

Back to the point, I hope "how elections are done" in your country pleases you, since that is where you live and vote.

Warblade is a big fan of MMP in New Zealand, you might want to ask him the merits and demerits of that system. Not living under it, I am not qualified to explain it in-expertly.

The Parliamentary system has its shortcomings as well. I offer you Italy and Germany as the alpha and the Omega. Italy has had some 56 governments rise and fall, since 1945, as the various coalitions, corruption, and no confidence votes have changed "who is in power." In Italy, the rich elite have always been in power, and IMO the politics are to entertain the people . . . but I could be wrong. In Germany, so strong a consensus was available that Helmut Kohl held office for 17 y ears. I think that is some kind of record for a bona fide multi party system in a free society. He held his coalition together like a proper Holy Roman Emperor, but in the end, the Electors (Kurfursts) sent him packing. ;)

The single advantage that I see to a system where more parties have a shot at the prize, or can get their agendas across via coalitions, is that more people probably feel as though they have a stake in the game, whether they do in reality or not.

As to media coverage and exit polls, as far a I am concerned, a 24 hour news blackout on the election results would make sense to me, since our country spans three time zones. Given that California has the most electoral votes, their vote always counts.

What you are now seeing in America is the primary elections. That is an election internal to each party to see who gets to run for office seats.

The current Primary is a series of elections, state by state, whereby the Democrats (and Repbulicans see below) winnow out their candidates until one stands supreme and becomes his party nomination. This is not the election. The Republicans, like the Democrats of 1996, have no need to run a primary since the party has chosen to back the incumbent: President Bush.

Iin 1968 I watched as Hubert Humphrey and Edwin Muskey and Sen. Robert Kennedy battled for who would run for the Democrats, and I watched Nixon win over George Romney and others, IIRC Ronald Reagan was in the mix.

In 1988, something similar happened. The Democrats and Republicans ran primaries at the same time. George Bush won over Jack Kemp, among others, and Michael Dukakis won over Gary Hart and Bob Kerry, though Hart's sex scandal with Donna Rice had as much to do with his loss as anything else.

As to the election itself, the biggest problem is voter turn out. Getting people to register and then to actually hit the voting booths has been a huge problem for some years. As to the electoral process, it is as described in the post above. More than once, to include John Adams and Benjamin Harrison, and now George W. Bush, the Electoral College has voted differently than the popular vote. Part of why this system is in place, besides historically, seems to be to avoid the "tyrranny of the majority," if that makes any sense at all. It sometimes does not to me, but it is a part of the checks and balances system in our Constitution. The number of "electors" is determined by the Senate and the House Representation in the Congress.

The lack of a viable and resiliant third party has been a lamentable shortcoming in the American Political scene since about 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose party ticket to oppose his former Vice President, W H Taft. All he did was ensure Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, a win. The same can be said for Wallace in 1968, Perot in 1992, and to a lesser extent, Nader in 2000. A third party candidate typically hurts one candidate and does not "steal votes" from the other. What is currently apparent is that the "two parties" are very keen to prevent the creation of a third party, since one of them would lose out in a major way. What is lacking is the initiative of all of the non voters, some 30% at least of the elibigle to register population, to form a third party. In America, as elsewhere, if you don't care, you get the government you deserve.

If another of you nice Europeans wants to chime in about what you don't like about America, I will offer you this in advance.

If you Europeans had not had your heads so far up your asses, and been so bound and determined to kill each other off in the twentieth century, America would not have filled the power vacuum you all left thanks to your infantile bickering and your depopulating your continent via the sword.

As John Wayne once said, in a movie: "Life's tough, but it's really tough when you are stupid."

Dear Europe: if the shoe fits, wear it. What appears to be happening now is that, with 50 years of protection from America to allow Europe to grow without killing each other, y'all seem to be playing nicer in the sandbox with each other. Good for all of you, and if you are extra good, I will buy you all an ice cream. :P

[Jarulf]

>First off, as an American, I don't much care how you think our elections should be done, you don't live
>here.

Ehh, not sure were you got the idea that we would care about your election system, or that we would like to point out how it is done. I simply wanted to understand it better. On the other hand, I would say that USA as a nation likes to tell other nations how to run their elections and many other things much more than, for example Sweden. All this is beside the point though since it was never what I was asking about. Or did you just wake up on the wrong side and had to spit out some bad things to start it all off assuming anyone posting about USA must have some bad attitude or feeling it is wrong? But perhaps it is a reflex of your to turn everything into some american versus europe issue (because I live in europe or?).

>IIRC the Swedes were nice enough to supply Hitler with the Heavy Water for his Atomic Bomb project.

You should either try to recall better or make some research before tossing out erroneous statements. Really, do you just post to see how bad of an impresion you can make on others? Anyway, the germans got their heavy water from Norway were they went themselves to get it really.

>Back to the point, I hope "how elections are done" in your country pleases you, since that is where you
>live and vote.

Actually I have several opinions, both good and bad about the election system in my country and don't think it is particulary good (or bad).

My post was not about figuring out what system is good or bad or the best, just asking about a few things that seems very odd from a fair point of view and from how most countries in the world would look at it. The judging of the best or worst, is really not the issue.

The rest of your post is really not even touching my initial post so I will leave it alone and let it be its own "off topic" subthread were you can all argue about what parlamentaric system you prefer. Hardly helped in answering or commenting any of my questions. Why not start your own thread if you want to have verbal wars figuring out who is the best, your country or whoever you feel discusing? But if you like to reply, at least take SOME time and effort to figure out what was actually posted and asked about in the initial post (or follow ups). Now, go off and troll somewhere else.

[eppie]

First off, as an American, I don't much care how you think our elections should be done, you don't live here. [QUOTE]

As a person, I vallue everybodies opinion. If an american has a well argumented opinion on how the political system in my country (Holland) is I am happy to respond him and exchange opinions with him even if he has not the same ideas as me.

We Americans don't much care for monarchies, the European model that it took two world wars to break.

I know you know your historical facts quiet well (from previous posts). So I guess you write this to get comments. (a troll thread it was called :P ) In my country the royal family has almost nothing to say for quiet some time now.

Back to the point, I hope "how elections are done" in your country pleases you, since that is where you live and vote.

I am as a matter of fact, the results don't always please me but the system is not very bad. One disadvantage (I mentioned earlier) is that it often takes ages to form a government after elections.

Italy has had some 56 governments rise and fall, since 1945, as the various coalitions, corruption, and no confidence votes have changed "who is in power."

I wonder what italy would look like if there was another political system . My opinion is that despite of their inability to "perform" politics they still did not slip of into a bananarepublic. Which might have been the case in another system.

The current Primary is a series of elections, state by state, whereby the Democrats (and Repbulicans see below) winnow out their candidates until one stands supreme and becomes his party nomination. This is not the election. The Republicans, like the Democrats of 1996, have no need to run a primary since the party has chosen to back the incumbent: President Bush.

I understand that that what's going on now are primary elections. Still I have the question, why don't they (e.g. all the democrats) vote at the same time. (I don't care so much about the results, but is it not an unfair way of voting?). The reason I can come up with is that at least now, in the end you have a clear winner, while otherwise you could end up with one candidate with 40 % of the votes and number 2 with 38 %. That would create too much problems in the party and would lead to votes going to the other party. What do you think about this?.

The lack of a viable and resiliant third party has been a lamentable shortcoming in the American Political scene since about 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose party ticket to oppose his former Vice President, W H Taft. All he did was ensure Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, a win. The same can be said for Wallace in 1968, Perot in 1992, and to a lesser extent, Nader in 2000. A third party candidate typically hurts one candidate and does not "steal votes" from the other. What is currently apparent is that the "two parties" are very keen to prevent the creation of a third party, since one of them would lose out in a major way. What is lacking is the initiative of all of the non voters, some 30% at least of the elibigle to register population, to form a third party. In America, as elsewhere, if you don't care, you get the government you deserve.

This is true and also with us a (lesser) problem. People do not vote for the candidate they like the most (let's say Nader) because if they vote for him a vote gets lost for the democrats, and the republicans have more chance to win. This means if you vote for the "third candidate" your vote is lost. (I know this is only for presidential elections, in senate there are also members from other than the two big parties am I right?)

If another of you nice Europeans wants to chime in about what you don't like about America, I will offer you this in advance.

This is an example of your " to Lurkers famous, irony" or not?. Anyway I am always happy to react. I actually like america very much, also most americans I know. I am only sorry to see that a handful of people are very busy in destroying that country which I like so much.

[QUOTE]As John Wayne once said, in a movie: "Life's tough, but it's really tough when you are stupid."

and everybody knows that everything he says is true!

Dear Europe: if the shoe fits, wear it. What appears to be happening now is that, with 50 years of protection from America to allow Europe to grow without killing each other, y'all seem to be playing nicer in the sandbox with each other. Good for all of you, and if you are extra good, I will buy you all an ice cream.

I don't think you have the money for that! :P

Seriously, I did not think about it like that (although it had nothing to do with the initial post).
You must bare in mind that we had a lot of countries which borders were made by some kings or other leaders, not giving anything about putting different peoples in one country. I think europe is more stable now because a lot of these things have been "resolved" now.


Anyway I don't think this topic was started to get a "sandbox" fight between europeans and americans. I am still walking around with a few questions. (a few were in this post).

Most important (a problem which is not only american): can somebody with leftisch ideas without support of wealthy people and companies make a chance to get into the white house (and I don't mean on a field trip). I seem to remember (not sure) that at the beginning of the 19th century the US had a larger communist movement than russia.

eppie

[Count Duckula]

Jarulf, I've got about half an hour before class (Roman satire) and ~2 years of American Government class to remember. Let's see if I can try answering some of this.

America has the system of "primaries" to winnow down the candidates. The Republican party's still backing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but the Democrats need to figure out who will best represent their party in the upcoming election out of the 10 or so candidates with enough money and support to campaign. Next, states hold primaries to decide which candidate gets the most voter support. I voted for Kerry in the Virginia primary.

I'm not entirely too sure on this, but I believe what happens next is that the candidates with the most support (most likely Dean and Kerry) will go on to a nationwide vote, and the nominee for the Democrats will be chosen. That person will then choose a vice-president running mate, and go up against Dubya in the election this November.

I know some countries have a completely open election, where anyone can get on the ballot and run for office. The California recall election was a lot like this--put up $10,000, and you're on the ballot. But I think the primary process does a better job of singling out exceptional people worthy to represent their party of choice.

Yeah, the Dubya/Gore election made a laughingstock out of our nation's voting process. But it's happened before. Back in the early 1800s, voting was done differently. People would vote representatives into Congress, and those representatives would vote on the candidates. Somebody by the name of John Quincy Adams wiggled his way into the Presidential seat because of miscounted votes and misunderstood voting. I've got notes about it someplace, and if I wasn't so pushed for time I'd go find them.

As for the Electoral College (how people can "win" states, etc.), people have mixed feelings about it in the US as well. Again, I'll try to explain more when I have more time.

Hope this tried answering some questions. :unsure:

[ShadowHM]

First off, as an American, I don't much care how you think our elections should be done, you don't live here.  We Americans don't much care for monarchies, the European model that it took two world wars to break.  You are all most welcome for our assistance along those  lines.  IIRC the Swedes were nice enough to supply Hitler with the Heavy Water for his Atomic Bomb project.  Boys will be boys, I suppose.  :unsure: 


...

If another of you nice Europeans wants to chime in about what you don't like about America, I will offer you this in advance.

If you Europeans had not had your heads so far up your asses, and been so bound and determined to kill each other off in the twentieth century, America would not have filled the power vacuum you all left thanks to your infantile bickering and your depopulating your continent
Dear Europe: if the shoe fits, wear it.  What appears to be happening now is that, with 50 years of protection from America to allow Europe to grow without killing each other, y'all seem to be playing nicer in the sandbox with each other.  Good for all of you, and if you are extra good, I will buy you all an ice cream.  :P

*brushes Occhi's shoulders vigorously to get the all the chips off*

*firmly takes away the Rogue's coffee cup and substitutes chamomile tea*

If Jarulf (or any other confused foreigner) is interested enough to ask about the system, you really don't need to parade all the short-comings of everybody else to shore up your side of the argument !

YES - your system is damn confusing. And YES it looks very odd from the outside. Mentioning the parts that look odd is only a way to help you know where the teaching has to start.

Packaging the teaching with insults and reviews of past screw-ups just makes you look like you have a weakness to hide and a grouchy temperament to boot. And we all know that there really is a sunny sweet-tempered Rogue in there somewhere. ;)

[Bun-Bun]

I think you may be confusing two very separate phases of the process. The final step, the actual election, is a simultaneous event (with the exception of accomodation for the many time zones the US spans). More on this in a bit.

Prior to that, the candidates for each party are chosen by whatever system that party wants. The major parties use a primary system. They have chosen to spread those out on a state-by-state basis. In fact, each state party organization chooses when their primary election is to be held, although I'm sure the national-level organizations largely control this.

The variation in dates allows some advantages for the state orgnaizations. The candidates can spend more time and money in smaller states, whereas they would be likely to concentrate on bigger states in one big primary. Given that the amount of money a candidate spends can be fairly disgustingly large, it can have a measurable effect on the economy. Is this more fair? I don't know - probably not. It does give some voice to some of the smaller states, though, and in any case it's not a government function and thus largely not under government control. I note that some of the smaller states use a caucus system rather than a primary system, which allows greater discussion but is not suitable for a more numerous population.

The primaries lead to the national party convention, which used to mean a big show while the real powers chose the candidate int he back room. There have been substantial moves to democratize that and represent the will of the voters more accurately. Recently, though, there have been moves away from popular representaion, specifically the "superdelegates" chosen by the party heirarchy rather than voted on. :(

The Presidential election itself is held all at once, but on a state-by-state basis. By that I mean that under the Constitution, voters are really not voting for candidates, but for "electors" who promise to vote for that candidate in the Electoral College. Each state has a given number of electors based on population. I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details here, but I think the states are winner-take-all, where the plurality of votes gets all the electors. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. :)

The electors almost always vote the way they are supposed to. They are generally chosen from party loyalists. It's a strange system, indeed. The framers of the Constitution didn't quite trust the masses; in fact, the direct popular election of the President is a fairly recent development - IIRC, the state legislatures used to choose electors. The Electoral College was placed as a last-ditch defense to stop the mob from placing some total boob in office, like Caligula's horse or Hank the Hallucination.

<editorial>
Didn't stop Bush, though.
</editorial>

[Jeunemaitre]

I'm not entirely too sure on this, but I believe what happens next is that the candidates with the most support (most likely Dean and Kerry) will go on to a nationwide vote, and the nominee for the Democrats will be chosen. That person will then choose a vice-president running mate, and go up against Dubya in the election this November.

Disclaimer: I don't have a degree in Political science, nor did I stay at a holiday inn express last night. It's been seven or eight years since I was studying the electoral process, and I haven't thought of the details much lately, so take the following with a grain of salt.

Count Duckula
I think you're pretty much right in your description; the only thing I think I can add is that the nationwide vote you're refering to is accomplished at the National Convention. The primaries do serve to show which candidates have the most national support (one state at a time), but they also serve to determine the delegates from each state that will attend the national convention. These delegates are then responsible for casting their votes (similar to the process of the electoral college) for the standing candidates, reassigning votes were necessitated by the drop-out of a candidate.

Jarulf
When you refer to the oddities of people voting in groups, after discussed opinions and reviewing the results of other voting groups, are you refering to the staggered primary process, or are you refering to the caucuses used in several states instead of the more familiar secret ballot primary elections? The caucus, if I'm not wrong, grew out of the "Town meetings" held in earlier times where local government issues were dealt with. It facilitated communication in a time when the horse was the fastest way to spread news. Caucuses are only used in the primary election process, commonly in midwestern states (I think). Similar to the differing classification of 46 states and 4 commonwealths making up the 50 United "States," "caucus" is a different name for a slightly different process arriving at the same end product.

One other thing: I'm not trying to get into an argument I don't belong in, but calling one of the Admins a troll is not what I would consider as the wise choice. I'm not sure what in your post set Occhi off, but returning a harsh tone and labeling him troll is not going to improve this discussion, and dismissing him is not going to bring the thread back to the electoral process of the US.


edit: fixa da format, and da spellin, and the verb tense, and parallel structure

[WarLocke]

Part of why this system is in place, besides historically, seems to be to avoid the "tyrranny of the majority," if that makes any sense at all.

Okay Occhi, I live here and that sentence doesn't make sense to me. Isn't the whole point of a Democracy (err... Representative Democracy, which I'll try not to rant on about) that the nation as a whole (the majority) makes the decisions?

I'm not trying to troll here; I honestly can't understand what you were trying to say with that sentence. :(


EDIT: VVVV I've got to agree. Occhi's post did seem to come out of nowhere. It's not really my business why, but Jarulf's post didn't seem like it deserved a reply like that.

[Chaerophon]

Calling Admins a troll is not what I would consider as the wise choice. I'm not sure what in your post set Occhi off, but returning a harsh tone and labeling him troll is not going to improve this discussion, and dismissing him is not going to bring the thread back to the electoral process of the US.

Being an extremely good-natured and prolific contributor to this site, I'm thinking that Jarulf, who in posting a well-reasoned question, was responded to with an anti-Europe, anti-Parliament tirade, can say whatever he wants to an admin as long as it is within the bounds of good taste - which that most certainly was.

[--Pete]

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

[Occhidiangela]

Well, that is it for now. I am sure more questions will come when I get some more input on this whole thing which to me seems very strange and not the way elections should be done.&nbsp;

You want to quibble about folks who cast judgements on how someone else votes after you posted that? Jarulf, you got what you came for, and more. Play "the innocent" with someone else, I've been around too long.

As to parliamentarian systems, my preference for others is irrelevant. My preference for my country is the one we have, though I imagine it could improve, and I expect that the systems in other lands where parliamentary systems are in place are more or less what suits the people there best, or meet the "good enough" test.

As to the US telling people how to vote, the last time I checked, it was the UN that observes the vast majority of " elections" in places that "need it" like Haiti. Go fish.

The situation in Iraq is a bit of an anomaly, and I for one am not impressed with the way the UN folded up its tent a few months back after a bombing. The UN, which has as members nations both of our countries, appears to be ill served by its current leadership in the area of resolve. The US leadership seems to have missed a few opportunities to fold in UN cooperation in the process of the past 10 months. That stinks. There are loads of representative government models that work, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, and I for one would love to see a "Chinese Menu" approach available to the folks in Iraq: pick from what makes most sense to you, one from column A two from Column B . . . :)

The UN should have been far more involved in the process, which has not been helped by the chilly attitudes in Washington, nor by the UN's lack of resolve. This is bad from every way you look at it. And as I predicted before the war went down, the most likely thing that will happen in any case in Iraq is the formation of an Islamic Republic, of some form to be determined by the people there. Or, a civil war. I would rather see the first than the second.

As for trolling, pot calls the kettle black, dear sir. I merely repaid in kind your initial posts closing.

[Chaerophon]

Nope, black-letter modern democratic theory. The idea is that minority groups such as, for instance, the black population in America, ought to have the same rights as do the majority in the federation. On theoretical grounds, thanks go out to J.S. Mill, Madison, et al. They helped build this notion right into the American system of governance. Today it is widely held that government should be instituted so as to protect minority opinion in the face of majority consensus. Your American federalist system, your separation of executive and legislative powers and your powers of judicial review were all intended from the outset to protect the individual from the weight of majority opinion. Makes sense to me; the majority aren't having too many problems where I come from :) Here's a pretentious quote from the Federalist Papers:

"...whilst all authority in [a federal republic] will be derived from and dependent on society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens that the rights of individuals, of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority."

Another one from some other guy:

"The American federation was conceived as a democracy that was refined and filtered through an artful maze of governmental institutions so designed as to powerfully discourage the formation and expression of a general or majority will."

A lot of this fear of majoritarianism stemmed from the excesses of the "liberty" exhibited over the course of the French Revolution in which thousands were executed as an exercise of the "general will"; unfortunately, this was nothing more than Rousseau's benevolent notion of popular sovereignty perverted into rampant majoritarianism. A sort of "legitimate" tyranny you could say. Of course, Madison came before most of that; a visionary in that sense, I suppose.

Anyways, the entire history of the United States has been shaped by this notion of protection of the individual against a "tyranny of the majority". Of course, there have been many debates about exactly who an individual is (ie. black slaves weren't included in many people's opinions), but the ideas have always been there.

[Occhidiangela]

That Hitler crack was rather pointless, and ill placed.

I offer you my sincere apology for that, no value added.

[Chaerophon]

I don't know Occhi, it DOES seem passing strange that the later states in the primaries know what the vote looks like before it gets to them in this modern era of mass communications. Let's face it, by the time we get through New England and the first Southern States, momentum, the "Big Mo'" as George H.W. once called it, has already, the majority of the time, determined who's going to win. All of the state by state canvassing doesn't enlighten anyone once one of the candidates starts to steamroll as Kerry has begun to do. In the states, the primaries are all about winning the election and much less about ideology. The perception of legitimacy, charisma, and, most importantly: face time are king.

To a European whose political institutions and parties are established and voted for much more on the basis of ideology and issues, and whose party leaders are not voted on, but are appointed based on meritorious service and qualification, the "non-ideological" nature of American politics must seem rather counterintuitive. I'm not entirely sure that he intended any kind of offense, but, given language issues and his COMPLETELY different political cultural assumptions, such a 'unique' system may very well seem the "wrong way" to conduct an election.

Let's put it this way: you could have let the perceived insult go, taught him about US politics and come off as the nice guy rather than jumping on him for his curiousity. I really don't think that constituted much of an attack. The whole system seems rather counterintuitive to me, for crying out loud, and I live two minutes from the border! However, I have much more access to knowledge about American history and "what makes Americans tick" than does Jarulf, and so perhaps I don't find your "unique" systems quite so strange. That doesn't make them any less anamolous given the way that the majority of the rest of the democratic world conducts elections, and maybe this - and not a personal attack - was where he was coming from. At least that's the way I interpreted it...

[Fragbait]

Hi JustAGuy,

One other thing: I'm not trying to get into an argument I don't belong in, but calling one of the Admins a troll is not what I would consider as the wise choice.

I think Jarulf just didn't know that Occhi is now a forum moderator.
What's the difference between an admin and a moderator? I thought that admins run the site, and moderators just moderate, say, the forums. But that's what is confusing: if you click the link at the bottom of the forum page that says 'the moderating team', the new mods aren't listed there. It simply has not been updated. Jarulf probably hasn't realized that there are two more mods now.
(well - now he has ;) )

As to what concerns the argument: I think it's time to bury the hatchet, since Occhi already apologised and it seems to me that some things just came over wrongly. Make LOVE, not WAR!
(forms 'piece'-sign with his fingers and puts up a huge smile :D )

Sorry that I can't contribute to the actual discussion. It's interesting, though!



Greetings, Fragbait

[Occhidiangela]

He can call me what he likes, he is a grown up, and I am more than happy to play ping pong. I was a bit harsh in response, so I am not surprised as his rejoinder. *shrugs*

His reputation is secure, as far as I am concerned, for about my next three life times. :)