Printable View
Just when I thought I had it all figured out...
I thought these primaries were like the party nominations we have here, only with the direct approach instead of the representative approach here. But then I read an article in the paper today:
So what the hell? Republicans can vote for the democrat candidate? Or is this journalist a useless idiot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
What are you so surprised of?
Some primaries are open and allow that, others are closed.
That sounds.......seriously :daisy: up.
Open primaries are stupid, imo. Members of a party should be the ones who determine a candidate that best represents that party. Open primaries helped the GOP end up with McCain, and now it's leading to meddling in the Democrat primaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
It varies by state. Generally, the idea is that it allows independants to have a say in the party they plan on voting for in the upcoming election. This is considered important to some people, because a large percentage of the US electorate is not registered in either party. AFAIK, most states with open primaries allow you to vote in whichever primary you want, but you can only vote in one.
While it certainly opens up the system to exploitation by voters from the opposing party, from what I've seen this is probably not a serious risk. I live in Virginia, which has an open primary. After our voting, the reports I saw indicated that about 7 to 8% of the votes cast in the Democratic primary were by Republicans. Apparently this was a very high number. At least a couple of those percentage points are Republicans who truly do want to vote for a Democrat this year (I know one personally), so the percentage of votes by Republicans intentionally trying to 'rig' the election would not likely be higher than 5%.
That's not a massive number, especially when you consider that those 'rigging' the vote aren't even coordinated very well in their efforts. As noted above, your quote is by a person who says that McCain is more likely to beat Obama than Clinton. This is directly contrary to most of the polls I have seen, which have Obama faring far better against McCain than Clinton would. My Republican friend who wants to vote Democrat specifically wants to vote for Obama. He'd vote Obama over McCain, but McCain over Clinton.
It's a crazy year.
Horetore:
Like pretty much everything electoral in the USA, it varies by state.
Some states have closed primaries or caucuses and only those who are party members registered as such prior to a certain date may participate. This kind of primary or causus would function along the lines with which you are familiar. E.G. Wisconsin
Other states have open primaries where a registered voter can request a ballot for either major political party and vote for the nominee of their choice. This approach to primaries and caucuses is usually taken on the grounds that "restricting" nomination voting to registered members of a party somehow denies the "will of the people" in selecting a nominee. E.G. Virginia
In these latter states, especially after one's own party's nominee has been decided, it is strategically valuable to vote in the other party's primary in order to promote the candidate LEAST likely to do well in opposition to the nominee of your true party.
I cast just such a vote in Virginia for Hilary Clinton.* McCain was already the almost prohibitively likely GOP nominee (at the time I voted, Huckabee needed to get 83% of the remaining delegates to defeat McCain. Absen pictures of McCain in bed with an underage boy, this would not happen) and therefore I cast my vote in the other primary to support a candidate who I know will turn out votes against her in November. Obama is every bit the political "lefty" she is, but doesn't have her high negatives. If my vote for Hil got her one delegate more, it gives her just that much more of a chance to turn the Dem nominating convention into a donnybrook.
I am not a big fan of McCain either -- though I do not question his personal integrity in any way -- since he's too "big government" for my preferences. Nevertheless, he is less likely to lead my country down a path I mislike, so I'll take him over either leading Democrat. Therefore, voting for the Democrat more likely to lose to him in November was the most logical choice for me.
Yes, labelling a primary system that allows such shenanigans as "malfed up" may be a fair description.
* Additionally, as a Capo-II recruiting tool, I promised Louis I would vote for his preferred nominee so that he could legitimately claimed to have caused a vote on her behalf. A few days after I offered this promise, Romney dropped out and made it my best vote as well thus making it very easy to honor that promise to our French friend.
Hmm? The president is elected by the will of the people... However, shouldn't a party's nominee be elected by the will of the party, not the people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But thanks for the clarifications, Seamus and Tincow. Although I'm sure I'll soon read another strange quirk of the american election throwing me into complete confusion again...
Bah. "Land of the Free". Hah. Should've been "Land of the Tricky".
The semi-closed primary system would be ideal. Registered party members have to vote in their own party primary, but independents can vote in either. Only one or two states do it though.
I've never agreed with that. A party's nominee should be selected by the party by whatever means they see fit. It should be the right of ALL parties, and not just the fringers, to select a complete jackass if they wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Why should independents be allowed to meddle in party politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Because independents are stuck with the end choices. In theory it should also prevent the extremes from hijacking a party nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A right that gets used too often, I'm afraid. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Isn't it the right of everyone to run for president? If so, what the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
No. You must be 35 years old and a natural-born US citizen to become president.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yeah, well.... That kinda means "everyone"... As in you don't have to be the democrat/republican candidate to run...Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
I'm still not sure where you are going with this. What does this have to do with independents voting in primaries? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If they want a say in a party's candidate- join the party. ~:idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
If the party members want to choose an "extreme" candidate, what business is it of someone who isn't even a member to stop them?
Hence my teeth-grinding at taxpayer-funded party candidate selections. As a non-affiliated registered voter (like 65% of my fellow Californians), why am I paying 7 million dollars to hold elections to decide who the Dems, Reps, Greens, Peace & Freedoms, etc. pick for their candidate in November?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
It's none of my business.
I don't care if they read tea-leaves, or analyze goat entrails, or toss dice, or vote democratically. Why am I paying for this process, thru taxes, in a state just inches away from bankruptcy?
Anyway, /rant. Just to really confuse HoreTore and our other non-US friends here, how about someone explain how Texas selects its delegates. Talk about a byzantine process.
Horetore, take for example my state of Hawaii. Here we use the Caucus system for each party. The Democratic caucuses were held last month and if I wanted to vote for one of the Democratic candidates to get the nomination I would have to register with the Democratic party, the same goes for the Republican Caucuses held later this year. However as a person that hates political parties I refuse to register with either party. Thus, my vote will be cast only in November when I choose one of the nominees or independents that are running.
If it was an open primary then instead of having to register with a political party I could opt for a democratic or republican ballot and vote for a nominee.
This is further complicated by each state having different rules for the selection of each parties candidates.
Surely the Open Primary is a good way to attract independents into your party. It might even help recruit them in future. Just a thought.
Yeah....Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Another explanation needed: What exactly is a "caucus"?
I actually don't know how the caucus in Hawaii works because I've never intended to participate in it. From what I understand this last time around it was just slipping a ballot in a box. I know in Iowa it involved people standing in designated areas to support their candidate while trying to coax other to switch their support before the final vote count.
Pretty funny though, we love talking about how we love democracy but our method of it is unnecessarily confusing making it difficult to talk about.
Ehy aren't all the votes cast on one day? The current system seems sinfully loaded.
Perhaps someone could explain to me the system of voter registration?
In Germany you go voting and nobody but yourself knows what you've voted. It's a secret vote. You don't need to register as everybody who lives in a voting district and is an adult is automatically on the register. There's no party affiliation noted for the voters.
Now, in the US, it seems to me that voters are registered to certain parties. Also, as Spmetla writes, some votes on a democratic caucus can come from Republicans.
Is this registration only for the caucuses and not for the final vote?
Is your vote still anonymous and secret?
Or does one database or register know what you've voted after the vote?
:dizzy2:
Balloting in all primaries and in the elections themselves is secret.
All voters in the USA must register in order to vote and are not automatically registered.
Registration is not difficult. You head to the local Department of Motor Vehicles, or city hall registration desk, or even send in a request by mail. You're required to provide them with your name and your domicile address so that they can put you into the correct precinct. Nobody is ever required to list themselves as a member of one party or another.
Despite the ease of this process, only about 65% of the roughly 215 million eligible adults in the USA register to vote.
Of those registered, no more than 70% will actually cast a vote during the election -- and that percentage is only reached in Presidential election years.
With minor third parties siphoning some votes, it is rare for a President to recieve more than 52% of that vote.
So, the "Leader of the Free World" is generally voted into office by above 1 out of every 5 US citizens who could have voted.
Caucuses are different than primaries in that there is no secret ballot. Members of the party gather in a room and decide who they'll vote for -- often by show of hands in a "town hall" style setting. Obviously, peer pressure etc., is more likely to play a role and candidates spend a great deal of effort to get organizers involved and to sway "key" people to their cause so as to elicit votes from others in such a setting. For the Dems, Obama's team has shown more talent at this than has Clinton's.
To someone who has never experienced it first hand(ie. me), that would seem rather....corrupt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Thanks Seamus Fermanagh,
that cleared up a misunderstanding.
But still, it's a confusing system for outsiders.
Not necessarily, though as with any political process the potential for corruption does exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Political conventions function the same way in the USA, as is the case in other areas of the world as well. The members get together, discuss, and select their representative (s).
It lacks the "safety" of a secret ballot for the individual, who must select their choice in view of others.
However, since the goal is to select a nominee, it could be argued that only someone that you'd publicly be willing to support should be worthy anyway.
Peer pressure, getting your people selected chair and secratary of the meeting etc. are not inherently "corrupt" tactics -- even though they do mean that some measure of non-coercive pressure is being applied. The "town hall" style meeting has quite a cachet in US politics with a long history of it being a model for what should be -- at least in the eyes of many.
Non-Americans need to keep in mind that a lot of this complexity is due to the history of the United States, particularly the fact that in the beginning it was a collection of States being governed by mutual consent, rather than a single government with subordinate regions for managerial efficiency. The various States have many, many rights to determine how they run their own affairs, independant of the Federal Government or the majority of national opinion. Since local election legislation is within the States' jurisdiction, each State develops its own system, resulting in many, many variations. Over time, they are becoming more homogeneous, but it's a slow process.
The best way to think of it is like a theoretical EU in 200 years time. The EU was founded on a system which gives individual nations vast amounts of power over the central EU government. If, over time, the EU central government grows stronger, the individual nations will be required to relinquish some of their powers. This will draw them all closer together and may eventually make the entire EU itself seem like a single country. However, because the EU was originally founded with a strong emphasis on the powers of individual nations to determine their own affairs, even 200 years down the road, there will be many differences in the way law and governance are enacted in different nations within the EU.
True. I tend to forget that these "elections" are not real elections, but rather a party decision - and as such it could of course be run however the party decides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But still... For the sake of reducing confusion in the world, please make your parties form central electoral committee's... Much simpler :smash:
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.