US primaries - could somebody explain?

[HoreTore]

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.

Yeah....

Another explanation needed: What exactly is a "caucus"?

[spmetla]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ehy aren't all the votes cast on one day? The current system seems sinfully loaded.

[R'as al Ghul]

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?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[HoreTore]

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?

[R'as al Ghul]

Thanks Seamus Fermanagh,

that cleared up a misunderstanding.
But still, it's a confusing system for outsiders.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To someone who has never experienced it first hand(ie. me), that would seem rather....corrupt?

Not necessarily, though as with any political process the potential for corruption does exist.

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.

[TinCow]

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.

[HoreTore]

Not necessarily, though as with any political process the potential for corruption does exist.

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.

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.

But still... For the sake of reducing confusion in the world, please make your parties form central electoral committee's... Much simpler