US Primaries

[Tabby]

I don't really understand them at all but they provide great entertainment. What's the true feeling south of 49?

[boots-aregard]

I think they may not be as 'entertaining' to us... ;(

[Tuffytown]

Very entertaining if you like reality shows. Not so much if the end goal is to choose a good presidential candidate.

[Tabby]

But there must have been some reason to set them up this way. How did they evolve into the spectacles that they are? I'm probably going to wish I didn't ask that question.

[WheresMyWhite]

Here's a place to check out for a start...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States

Happy reading

[Tabby]

Thanks WheresMyWhite. I don't know how much that helped - it looks like they just make up the rules as they go along !

[WheresMyWhite]

Not really. The debates are not part of the actual primary process but they do allow each of the 2 major parties to get all the candidates out for a dog and pony show.

The primaries themselves allow the public to vote for the various party candidates to end up on the general election ballot (Novembers, even numbered years, presidential is every other general election ballot).

Only voters registered as one of the two primary parties may vote in the primary and their ballots have only candidates (not just presidential) of their registered party.

General elections, everyone can vote and all will have the same choices to choose from. Having said that, you may see different candidates on a ballot than someone else if they live in a different area (ex: my county elected official choices may be different than yours if we don't live in the same county).

General elections are where all the 3 party candidates appear

How candidates get on a primary and in what order (which unfortunately does make a difference as many vote for the first name they see ) differs by states. Primaries, when and how that candidate gets on the ballot are state determined.

In November, all our presidential choices better look the same across the country - but local government officials will, of course, differ.

So yes, debates are one thing... primaries can certainly appear to be made up on the fly but you may just be seeing the results of different states doing things differently

[Saddlebum]

The voters don't really elect a president. We vote on how we want ours partys' state delegates to vote at the National Convention. The delegates each state chooses are free to vote how they wish. Historically, they vote the way the majority of the participants voted (99% of the time) in the national election but they don't have to. Some states may impose a fine if they don't, etc. There have been presidents who were elected who did not win the popular vote, I think 4 times that has happened.

Now, there are what's called SUPER DELEGATES. These people are choosen by the party to go to the National Convention and vote for who they want along with the delegates from each state. Each state is given a certain number of delegates depending on their population total (hmm, I think).

Presidential candidates must win a certain number of delegates (electorial collage) to be declared the winner. http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... ctors.html

It's not the people's choice. Never has been in reality. Where the SUPER DELEGATES came from and how they came about existing, ugh, I have no clue.

Anyone? It's too complicated for me.

[Figgy]

I still think that the US model is a little more democratic than ours, we elect the party

which is why John Keys (Kiwi PM) was so on the money when he said

the thing with inviting the Australian PM to an event is that is that you know someone will turn up, you just don't know who

our prime minister revolving door, perhaps Barnaby Joyce will be the next PM, Yorkshire Terriers around the world will be quaking in fear

I thought it was interesting the way Trump claimed a victory, it will be interesting to see how far he goes, but it does make a mockery about the entire process, shows how social media has changed the entire game - its raised the democracy expectation but the level of debate has declined - no one talks policies in detail anymore, its all about the one line media grab and they are always going to fail

[WheresMyWhite]

shows how social media has changed the entire game - its raised the democracy expectation but the level of debate has declined - no one talks policies in detail anymore, its all about the one line media grab and they are always going to fail

IMO, social media has changed many games... politics among them but also so many other areas. The public, in general, doesn't seem to want to think or question much about what they learn but rather take what they are shown at face value as the truth.

It is also often the case, again IMO , that what a person hears first is the "truth" whether that is truly the case or not. I think that is often why there is a rush to get things out there, by both organized journalism along with individuals/groups using social media. If I am the first to say the sun rises in the west, I'd get head shaking that I was right and the poor person who comes along after me and says it rises in the east is left scrambling even as they recommend watching a sunrise

For me, politics anymore is scary since the public, as you said, grabs those one liners and runs with them and doesn't really take the time to think about consequences of their voting...

[KathyK]

shows how social media has changed the entire game - its raised the democracy expectation but the level of debate has declined - no one talks policies in detail anymore, its all about the one line media grab and they are always going to fail

IMO, social media has changed many games... politics among them but also so many other areas. The public, in general, doesn't seem to want to think or question much about what they learn but rather take what they are shown at face value as the truth.

It is also often the case, again IMO , that what a person hears first is the "truth" whether that is truly the case or not. I think that is often why there is a rush to get things out there, by both organized journalism along with individuals/groups using social media. If I am the first to say the sun rises in the west, I'd get head shaking that I was right and the poor person who comes along after me and says it rises in the east is left scrambling even as they recommend watching a sunrise

For me, politics anymore is scary since the public, as you said, grabs those one liners and runs with them and doesn't really take the time to think about consequences of their voting...

Hold onto your hat -- I agree 100%.

[WheresMyWhite]

Hold onto your hat -- I agree 100%.

[Tabby]

I still think that the US model is a little more democratic than ours, we elect the party

I used to think the same thing but now I'm not so sure. There's something to be said about electing a party with a platform and leader as opposed to an all-powerful single person. We can get a new leader without changing public expectations. There's a reason the governing party was elected and it doesn't go immediately out the window because the leader steps down for one reason or another. That being said, I don't like that our MPs can cross the floor. It's one thing for someone to quit the party and go independent but to cross to the other party seems pretty deceptive towards voters who put them there.

[Moutaineer]

I don't think the President of the USA is an all powerful political leader, though. He is still a figurehead of the party he represents. The candidates can all go out there saying "I'm going to do this, that and the other," but at the end of the day, it's mostly hot air. They don't really have that much individual authority.

[KathyK]

Anyone who has been following US politics for the past 9 years knows that our president is far from all powerful. The Senate and House have obstructed him too many times to mention.

[Tabby]

Yet he has done a lot more than what any of our parties could do under conditions of a minority government.

That being said, majority governments in Canada (and other countries with similar systems) can do just about anything they want unimpeded - as was seen with our previous government. The only thing that stopped them was the Supreme Court and even that takes way too long.

So I don't know which is worse - they both have their down sides.

[hoopoe]

the house and senate are "a series of checks and balances" to temper the "power" of the president

the last 10 years, however it has been mostly automatic Naysaying split along party lines

that is no way to run a country, it is how we run the play yard at the Elementary School.

But it does seem that some things do get done and they tend to be fairly middling of the road feeling

which is where the majority of us live.

The MEDIA would have you think otherwise but , no , that is where most of us are

[Chancellor]

And if you read the board when George Bush was president, the people of the UDBB would have said that the "naysaying" of Congress was just Checks and Balances (which frankly are needed for EVERY President).

[boots-aregard]

I still think that the US model is a little more democratic than ours, we elect the party

I used to think the same thing but now I'm not so sure. There's something to be said about electing a party with a platform and leader as opposed to an all-powerful single person.

Yeah, one advantage of electing the party is that you are electing (one would presume) on issues, not on personalities. The whole personalities thing comes later.

Looking at the 2016 election, it seems to be all about personalities, and there's hardly any policy to be found.

[Chisamba]

Hillary's speech was really good, i must say, if i did not have an aversion to her, I would have been on the band wagon, maybe i am anyway. The victory in South Carolina is impressive

[hoopoe]

not just social media, but media in general

the 24/7/365 constant need to feed feed feed the electronic short attention span public

If I were Queen of the World, candidates would be given from July 1 of the election year to promote and a budget of 1 million dollars to do it with

Debates would be true debates with no audience and Robert's Rules of Order enforced

[WheresMyWhite]

Hoopoe, I might just vote for you for POTUS

or Queen of the World

[KathyK]

Good grief, agreement with WMW yet again!

[KathyK]

not just social media, but media in general

the 24/7/365 constant need to feed feed feed the electronic short attention span public

If I were Queen of the World, candidates would be given from July 1 of the election year to promote and a budget of 1 million dollars to do it with

Debates would be true debates with no audience and Robert's Rules of Order enforced

I'm afraid few would bother to watch a debate that didn't promise to be a verbal slugfest.

[WheresMyWhite]

Good grief, agreement with WMW yet again!

See, even people from both sides of the fence can reach agreement on some things

[seahorsefarm]

not just social media, but media in general

the 24/7/365 constant need to feed feed feed the electronic short attention span public

If I were Queen of the World, candidates would be given from July 1 of the election year to promote and a budget of 1 million dollars to do it with

Debates would be true debates with no audience and Robert's Rules of Order enforced

I'm afraid few would bother to watch a debate that didn't promise to be a verbal slugfest.

At this point, I fail to see how the US would be worse off if viewership dropped due to implementing hoopoe's excellent ideas. I see nothing - nothing!! - to recommend the current model of election season. Our redonkulous ads and debates really put the "paign" in campaigning.

[boots-aregard]

I'm afraid few would bother to watch a debate that didn't promise to be a verbal slugfest.

I dunno. That's exactly why I *don't* watch.

[hoopoe]

me too

I went on vacation last fall and spent two weeks with an international group of folks

10 of us, I was the only American

the first thing they asked me about was Trump. They were pretty amazed at the "election process"

[Tabby]

It doesn't surprise me. Trump is a popular topic in Canada.

[Saddlebum]

hoopoe, I make you Queen of the World! YEA! If only our politicians had the ability of making this happen.

I know Sanders had ideas along this line in remaking the political money machine.

[WheresMyWhite]

hoopoe, I make you Queen of the World! YEA! If only our politicians had the ability of making this happen.

But only if they put hoopoe in that position - I suspect they'd much rather act like children and fight over which one of them should get that esteemed title ... sigh...

[Tuffytown]

hoopoe, I make you Queen of the World! YEA! If only our politicians had the ability of making this happen.

But only if they put hoopoe in that position - I suspect they'd much rather act like children and fight over which one of them should get that esteemed title ... sigh...

and now who's pee pee is bigger. I am so sorry for my conservative friends that this is what the discourse has degraded to.

[WheresMyWhite]

hoopoe, I make you Queen of the World! YEA! If only our politicians had the ability of making this happen.

But only if they put hoopoe in that position - I suspect they'd much rather act like children and fight over which one of them should get that esteemed title ... sigh...

and now who's pee pee is bigger. I am so sorry for my conservative friends that this is what the discourse has degraded to.

And one of the HUGE reasons I will not vote for the republicans - this was totally ridiculous...

[Tabby]

As these things unfold, it's got me thinking on what it all could mean for the future of the US. These are somewhat random thoughts and I admit I don't know enough about the system and could be way off base.

1. The republican party seems to be fractured. Every step closer that Trump makes it to the nomination seems to fracture it further. I've been starting to wonder if this might actually be a good thing. Probably not for the immediate future and certainly not for anyone who leans right politically - but perhaps in the long run. For the past few elections or so, the Tea Party seems to be making grounds within the party, but at the same time driving out more moderate or central-leaning folks. It's almost as if there are 2 distinct groups represented under one umbrella. Each have their own ideals and though there is some common ground between them, it seems to be decreasing. If this were happening in Canada I would predict that the GOP would split into 2 distinct parties. But I don't know about the US. I've only known the bi-partisan system there.

Question: Does the US political system have the capacity for more than 2 parties? I'm not referring to just the presidency but the senate and the house of representatives. Is it possible for people from a 3rd party to be elected to these? Has it ever happened before?

2. The democratic party also seems fractured, but perhaps in the earlier stages. Though it's unlikely that Sanders will get the nomination, he sure seems to be doing better than expectations. He also seems to have a lot of support from young people. My question here is, assuming Hilary wins, will the democratic party establishment adapt in any way to incorporate some/any of the ideals Sanders is running on? In other words, though his chances of nomination (and presidency) are pretty dismal, will his efforts in running this campaign have lasting effects in the evolution of the democratic party? Or will it result in further fracturing of the party the way the Tea Party seems to have affected the GOP.

Like I said, I don't know enough about the history or even how it works to know if I'm even asking the right questions. But it does seem like the US is undergoing a cultural shift on both sides of the political spectrum. I guess I'm looking for information on if anything like this has happened before and what may happen next.

[WheresMyWhite]

Tabby, in a quick Google (which means I may be incorrect ) I don't believe there is any constitutional mandate for a two party system. However, Congress is set up as a two party system with a majority and minority party. There can be third party candidates in Congress, yes, but they tend to be a very small percentage overall. I don't know what would happen if some third party did actually get more congress-critters than either of the current majority/minority parties. I suspect Washington DC's head would fall off

So, I think it is possible but a significant chunk of the voters would have to agree on a single third party candidate. It is mind boggling (at least to me) when I see our general election ballot in November every 4 years exactly how many different candidates/parties are there to choose from for POTUS.

Your #2 asks some good questions. Many voters are content with voting their chosen party line or choose not to vote at all.

Has it happened before, I am not sure (I did find an interesting drivel in Wiki on a brief history of the US 2-party system where in the course of US history, it has not always been Republican/Democrat as we know them today - always 2 parties but not the same two parties). I am not a US historian to really know a more detailed answer than this..

I wonder what would happen if a candidate showed up who really was middle of the road, combining things from both right and left into a reasonable middle ground *and* managed to avoid the political bickering (which I think it helping to kill both parties and all candidates...

[Tabby]

Thanks WMW. I also wonder if the US would embrace or reject a middle-of-the-road candidate, or if it were even possible to have one given the way the party nominees are selected. I wonder if this whole Trump thing will set some major changes in motion. Or does the establishment have enough power to get what they want regardless of the primary outcome?

[WheresMyWhite]

The primaries do matter currently for the 2 major parties.

I am trying to remember how a candidate could get on the ballot in a primary or how it would be possible. In primary elections, you get a ballot with only your registered party candidates so if I am registered republican, my primary ballot will have only republicans. In the general election, I can vote for whomever I want.

As I recall in CO (a caucus state), the caucus is used to determine which candidates garner enough votes to get on the primary ballot and in what order - since yeah, some lemmings vote for the first name on the list (which is the candidate that the caucus process gave the most votes to during the caucus process).

If this makes your head hurt, you would not be alone

IMO, I don't know that it is as much that the "establishment" has the power to get what they want as much as many people view their chosen candidate based on maybe one or two issues rather than the entire platform. Or they just vote party lines as it is "easy". Or they believe the rhetoric (or most of it).

I think until the populace is ready to stand up and say enough to either one or both current major parties, nothing will change... sigh...

[Tabby]

Thanks again, WMW. There's an interesting article in our CBC today by their American correspondent on this. He is suggesting that it is possible for the delegates to vote against Trump even though the voters have essentially given them the mandate to vote for him. A lot of the article contains a bunch of rather extreme what-ifs but I was curious if this was even possible. If you're interested, the article is here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-repu ... -1.3483833.

[Canyon]

MSNBC has interviewed Ben Ginsberg, a Republican attorney, several times during discussions after the last several primaries. Here is what he said on March 1 about how exactly would a brokered convention work?

And more

The Republican Convention should be very interesting this year!

[WheresMyWhite]

Tabby, yes, I believe somewhere in the dusty corners of my memory hearing that delegates to the national convention don't *have* to vote for the candidate they are supposed to (i.e., there is no law that says they must vote how their state assembly directed the votes be cast at the national assembly). Just, usually they do...

[Tabby]

I have another question - when a candidate drops out, what happens to the delegates that he/she has already won? Do they become free agents or is there some protocol as to who they are supposed to vote for?

[WheresMyWhite]

Good question Tabby

I had to GTS (Google That Sh*t ) to find out...

Sounds like the Republican Party allows states to set their own rules for delegate allocation when a candidate quits...

IMO, not always the most unbiased source but it'll do for now

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-delegates_us_56e8c47fe4b0b25c9183d48a

Way too many scenarios to want to post here

[Tabby]

Thanks again! This plot just keeps on getting thicker and thicker, doesn't it?

[WheresMyWhite]

I consider it a form of entertainment

It doesn't always make sense to me and I live here...

What I don't know (and haven't looked) is are delegates required to vote how their primary dictated and what happens if they don't???

[Tabby]

I can't expect it to end well if a delegate went against voters wishes. Lynch mob, perhaps?

[WheresMyWhite]

Tabby, you are making such 'interesting' observations.

Yes, more GTS

The Democrats and Republicans don't follow the same rules with respect to how delegates vote at the national convention.

At the RNC, the first vote requires delegates to vote for who they are 'bound' to based on their state's primary. If there is no majority on the first vote, then all delegates are free to vote for whomever they want in subsequent rounds of voting. Yes, this has happened (last in 1952).

Ref http://www.bustle.com/articles/147478-what-if-no-candidate-wins-a-majority-of-delegates-the-result-would-be-unmitigated-chaos

This deals pretty much with the Republicans. You'd have to GTS to see how the Democrats handle a non-majority delegate vote

I'm thinking popcorn, beer, margaritas all around when the respective conventions occur... (esp if the Republican's still have more than two candidates and no one candidate has a majority ).

[Tabby]

Popcorn and beer may be appropriate but I wonder if they'd be best consumed from inside a bomb shelter.

[WheresMyWhite]

You're probably far enough away to be safe ...

[musical comedy]

At the RNC, the first vote requires delegates to vote for who they are 'bound' to based on their state's primary. If there is no majority on the first vote, then all delegates are free to vote for whomever they want in subsequent rounds of voting.

That's not true.

[WheresMyWhite]

Then what is true? That's what I gleaned from a quick surf of the internet...