If primaries and caucauses are weird to those outside the US, I can already anticipate the flood of "What the %$#@!@ is the Electoral College?" questions that will happen in November. :laugh4:
Printable View
If primaries and caucauses are weird to those outside the US, I can already anticipate the flood of "What the %$#@!@ is the Electoral College?" questions that will happen in November. :laugh4:
Uh-oh. Never even heard of that....Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
Okay, here we go. The framers were KEENLY aware of the limitations of unrestricted democracy (e.g. Athenian exile trials) as well as the problems of a Republic that functioned without a written/absolute framework (Rome). The USA is NOT an unrestricted democracy in any way shape or form.
Electoral College
The Framers did NOT provide for the direct election of the President by the people.
Instead, the States were given complete freedom to choose how the electors of those states would be selected. Electors to the Electoral College were to vote (December) for a particular candidate, with the results presented to Congress for confirmation (January) prior to the swearing in of the newly elected President (March).
Each state receives a number of electors equal to its total representation in Congress (Each state has 2 Senators plus its proportionate share of the 435 representatives in the House of Reps), plus 3 electors from the Federal District of Columbia (site of government).
By Constitutional Ammendment during FDR's Presidency, the Date for the inauguration of a new President was moved from 4 March to 20 January to reflect the decreased amount of communication/travel time required.
It was left up to each individual state how to select Electors. Most chose to hold a general election. It was also left up to the individual states to put restrictions or not put restrictions upon an elector as to how they would vote in the Electoral College vote. Many states, at the outset, chose to leave it up to the Elector's own sense of honor and conscience. Increasingly, states passed laws mandating electors to vote as indicated by a plurality of the votes in their general elections (and in some cases fining or jailing them if they did not).
Over time, we now have a system where the ALL of the electors in a given state are required to vote for the candidate chosen by a plurality of the voters in that state during the November general election.
This means that someone can be President by winning pluralities in the correct combination of states (270 electoral votes of the 538 available) even if they do not have a majority of voters supporting them.
E.G. in 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by nearly 1/2 a percent. However, with Ralph Nader siphoning off votes from the Democrats in Florida, George Bush was able to win a plurality in Florida by a VERY small number of votes and thus earn ALL of Florida's electoral college votes, thus giving him the Presidency despite losing the "popular" vote.
Should any candidate fail to achieve a majority in the Electoral College in December, The House of Representatives is Consitutionally mandated to take up as its first and sole order of business the selection of a President from among those having received votes in the electoral college. In selecting a President, the House of Representatives (and DC) would vote by STATE with 1 vote per state to select the President (26 of 51 required). Each state gets one vote, so states with a single representative would have the same vote as a state with 54 (and the states with multiple reps would need to poll their state first to determine which candidate got that state's vote).
That one isn't confusing, actually... I knew it before(though your explanation/summary was appreciated Seamus), but I've never heard the name before.
It's really similar to the system we have here. We vote for MP's, and they then decide upon the PM and government. 6 years ago, this resulted in the party with 7% of the vote gaining the PM... That may be even weirder than the US system...
Not all states designate their entire slate of electors to the winner. Nebraska and Maine do it by congressional district, with the overall winner getting the 2 "senate" votes. To me, this makes more sense, especially with the skewing of votes caused by the large states like Texas and California. It would also force candidates to campaign more in states they would normally lose. The GOP candidates ignore Maryland since the votes from Baltimore and the DC burbs generally are enough to win the state, but there are conservative districts in the rural areas. The reverse is true here in Virginia. The district method would keep candidates from ignoring "lost cause" states, and would force them to moderate their stances somewhat.
Not going to happen though, it's in the interest of the controlling parties in the state legislatures to offer all-or-nothing electoral votes to the national election.
Yet another question. One who might make me confused again...
Who decides what the rules are for the nominations in each state? The head of the parties? The state legislature? The state division of the party?
Each State's Party organization is responsible for the rules governing the selection of delegates to the national nominating convention. Each State's Party organization is directly responsible for determining the nomination process within its state.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In practice, the national party leadership can have a good bit of influence over this. Moreover, a given state can pass election laws to which any and all Parties must obey in promulgating their own systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In other words- All of the above. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Hmmm...
Why would the government have anything to do with a party nomination?
The official answer is the election regulations are made to minimize corruption and promote openness in the political system. The rhetoric holds that deals made in "smoke-filled rooms" are somehow cheating the "people" of their input into the political process. This is certainly the impetus behind primaries in general and open primaries in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In practice, of course, regulations limiting individual political contributions and direct contributions have ended up putting a LOT of money in the hands of the national party organizations, "un-affiliated" organizations like moveon.org, and special interest political action committees (PACS).
Open primaries have generated a system where the party nominee can very easily be the nominee WITHOUT being representative of the values held near and dear by the core members of the party -- especially in a milieu where the candidate may have to espouse causes they KNOW are impractical or counter productive but which have become the pet project of one of the "un-affiliated" organizations.
Also, many of the government laws enacted to "regulate" the electoral process serve -- in praxis -- to make it difficult for a 3rd party to gain real traction, thus institutionalizing the 2-party system that both major parties find rewarding.
I agree- the underlying assumption about these tightly regulated primaries seems to be that since the President, for decades at least, has always been a Republican or a Democrat people should have a say in who these parties select as nominees - because it's a given that nobody is going to reform the system to give a fair chance to third parties :thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
The Dutch system is a proportional parliamentary system, and not all parties hold actual elections to determine their leaders (the Socialist Party is downright stalinist when it comes to party obedience.)
But if you don't like it, you can vote for a number of other parties. Parties that do have internal elections only have member votes. The system has its flaws, but lack of choice isn't one of them IMO.