US electoral system explained

[Faustus]

Having many parties it's not more democratic then having just 2. What is relevant it's the way in which people became top party officials, the so called self-replication of the political elite. By selecting candidates the people already on top pass their ideology and habits to the future weeding out those who are undesirable from their point of view.

The highly competititve US system of nominations it's far more democratic then usual in the rest of the world where the candidates are chosen behind close doors (how did Gordon Brown became PM?). This US system allows for a suplimentary occasion for the electorate to express his will. Choosing the head of the executive it's also great.

 

Excellent summary Kosmo. This "suplimentary occasion" also allows us to bring up national issues for debate at least every four years (if the popular media will permit it) which is in part how I took your meaning.

[Faustus]

I was informed late yesterday HRC would be in our long neglected town (and state) today, and was asked: did I support her, and would I like to go see her? WJClinton was here two weeks back, and Obama came through for a quick surprise appearance at the local college (Nick's English Hut - where young students gather, and aging ones still hang around. I.E. I have been in the next booth to Evan Bayh and his dad "Birch" when Evan was Gov. and Birch was a former US Sen. having lunch together) hang-out.

 

To the callers question, I support her (all the way to the nomination), and I would like to see her (as a historical figure), but I stay away from "throngs" as a personal choice.

 

Still, Obama, when he was here, unlike HRC, didn't take time with the "adults" except as they hung out in younger venues.

 

Indiana's primary is May 6th. Any registered voter can walk in and will be asked which they want, democrat or republican ballot. They are only limited in choice by the ballot they request. I don't know for sure about other states, but this system being so simple, would seem to apply broadly across the spectrum. Come the "general", there is a general ballot and your earlier primary vote in no way limits choices at that time.

 

Asking the opinion of one stalwart D. of late middle age, I was told she had already "voted early" for HRC, being put off by some of the lately publicized problems of Obama's. But, also believing HRC hasn't been truthful (BUT what politician is? she asks), she HOPES for a white knight (Edwards or Gore) to come in at the last moment, and save the day in the general election from HRC her primary choice. Would she vote for McCain , if she hadn

Edited April 25, 2008 by Faustus

[Ursus]

Having many parties it's not more democratic then having just 2. What is relevant it's the way in which people became top party officials, the so called self-replication of the political elite. By selecting candidates the people already on top pass their ideology and habits to the future weeding out those who are undesirable from their point of view.

The highly competititve US system of nominations it's far more democratic then usual in the rest of the world where the candidates are chosen behind close doors (how did Gordon Brown became PM?). This US system allows for a suplimentary occasion for the electorate to express his will. Choosing the head of the executive it's also great.

 

 

That's one way of looking at it.

 

But another way is that, while party labels usually mean something in Europe and the Commonwealth, in America they can be essentially meaningless. To capture the presidency you need the broadest coalitions possible, which means in practice a two party system, one vaguely center-right and one vaguely center-left. But within those two respective camps there is so much variation as to be laughable at times. Just in the Republican party alone you get eveything from hardcore theocrats to pseudo-libertarians. The only thing Republicans can usually agree on (in theory) is tax cuts, and the only thing Democrats can usually agree on (in theory) are vague anti-establishment grumblings.

 

I'd much prefer a multi-party democracy where the party chairman does whip people in line in conformacy with a specific party agenda. At least there is truth in advertising.

[Kosmo]

You have a point, but many parties mean goverment coalitions and those can be used as scape goats for moving away from party line or electoral promises. See Angela Merkel raising old people payments as an electoral bribe despite promising at the former elections cuts in spending.

 

I like anyone that whips politicians

[Faustus]

Having many parties it's not more democratic then having just 2. What is relevant it's the way in which people became top party officials, the so called self-replication of the political elite. By selecting candidates the people already on top pass their ideology and habits to the future weeding out those who are undesirable from their point of view.

The highly competititve US system of nominations it's far more democratic then usual in the rest of the world where the candidates are chosen behind close doors (how did Gordon Brown became PM?). This US system allows for a suplimentary occasion for the electorate to express his will. Choosing the head of the executive it's also great.

 

That's one way of looking at it.

 

But another way is that, while party labels usually mean something in Europe and the Commonwealth, in America they can be essentially meaningless. To capture the presidency you need the broadest coalitions possible, which means in practice a two party system, one vaguely center-right and one vaguely center-left. But within those two respective camps there is so much variation as to be laughable at times. Just in the Republican party alone you get eveything from hardcore theocrats to pseudo-libertarians. The only thing Republicans can usually agree on (in theory) is tax cuts, and the only thing Democrats can usually agree on (in theory) are vague anti-establishment grumblings.

 

I'd much prefer a multi-party democracy where the party chairman does whip people in line in conformacy with a specific party agenda. At least there is truth in advertising.

 

IMO it comes down to the differences between parliamentary systems and presidential systems.

Ursus the ideas you define which the parties speak to are the top issues the president as chief executive ONLY can deal with.

Your description of what party members can agree on is a little skewed (as no doubt my own would be too). Members of the Democrat party are mainly anti establishment to the degree the establishment becomes controlled by Republicans. But even then they are strongly of the "party of government" (That is they say "we need the government [establishment] to solve most problems"). You describe the Republicans well except for one main stratum: It is mainly the party of business. A major division within the stratum is the one between small individually owned business, and corporate business. However, most captains of corporations (vote Democrat and) lean towards government involvement as long as everyone (including small businesses) is forced into equal compliance. They can afford the regulations and therefore the lawyers, where small businesses (individuals) find the cost of regulations and lawyers onerous.

 

The laughable variations you mention which the parties include make the party situation always volatile. That might be a good thing.

 

Kosmo, your understanding, coming from outside our system, is very well thought out. I think you see it so clearly because you see it without filter.

[Faustus]

Wednesday evening Hillary Clinton will make the first of two appearances on Fox News Channel

Edited April 30, 2008 by Faustus

[Gaius Octavius]

Personally, I wouldn't give the neo-con job artist and hypocrite bill ohryeley the sweat off of my diseased feet. NPR has a bigger and so much more intelligent audience. Have no fear though, if obama is nominated, he will certainly lose to the Screamer, m'hat m'cane. I can just picture obama taking Dixie, Indiana, Idaho, Utah and such as Kansas.

[Kosmo]

Have no fear though, if obama is nominated, he will certainly lose to the Screamer, m'hat m'cane. I can just picture obama taking Dixie, Indiana, Idaho, Utah and such as Kansas.

 

Mubarack Saddam Hussein Osama it's a strange name for a US presidential candidate especialy one that was raised in a muslim country and has a crazy priest that hates US His name makes me remember a scene from the movie Crash when the governor was looking for a black hero and they only got an arab fireman named Hussein.

It's hard to believe that he could get elected in an european country, a clear sign of the different way in which europeans and americans define themselves as nations.

[Horatius]

Mubarack Saddam Hussein Osama it's a strange name for a US presidential candidate especialy one that was raised in a muslim country and has a crazy priest that hates US His name makes me remember a scene from the movie Crash when the governor was looking for a black hero and they only got an arab fireman named Hussein.

It's hard to believe that he could get elected in an european country, a clear sign of the different way in which europeans and americans define themselves as nations.

We ain't all bigots and knee jerk reactionaries over here sonny.

[Gaius Octavius]

Mubarack Saddam Hussein Osama it's a strange name for a US presidential candidate especialy one that was raised in a muslim country and has a crazy priest that hates US His name makes me remember a scene from the movie Crash when the governor was looking for a black hero and they only got an arab fireman named Hussein.

It's hard to believe that he could get elected in an european country, a clear sign of the different way in which europeans and americans define themselves as nations.

We ain't all bigots and knee jerk reactionaries over here sonny.

 

What, in particular, is bigoted about that statement?

Edited May 1, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[Faustus]

Have no fear though, if obama is nominated, he will certainly lose to the Screamer, m'hat m'cane. I can just picture obama taking Dixie, Indiana, Idaho, Utah and such as Kansas.

 

Mubarack Saddam Hussein Osama it's a strange name for a US presidential candidate especialy one that was raised in a muslim country and has a crazy priest that hates US His name makes me remember a scene from the movie Crash when the governor was looking for a black hero and they only got an arab fireman named Hussein.

It's hard to believe that he could get elected in an european country, a clear sign of the different way in which europeans and americans define themselves as nations.

It

[Gaius Octavius]

Have no fear though, if obama is nominated, he will certainly lose to the Screamer, m'hat m'cane. I can just picture obama taking Dixie, Indiana, Idaho, Utah and such as Kansas.

 

Mubarack Saddam Hussein Osama it's a strange name for a US presidential candidate especialy one that was raised in a muslim country and has a crazy priest that hates US His name makes me remember a scene from the movie Crash when the governor was looking for a black hero and they only got an arab fireman named Hussein.

It's hard to believe that he could get elected in an european country, a clear sign of the different way in which europeans and americans define themselves as nations.

It

Edited May 1, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[Horatius]

Mubarack Saddam Hussein Osama it's a strange name for a US presidential candidate especialy one that was raised in a muslim country and has a crazy priest that hates US His name makes me remember a scene from the movie Crash when the governor was looking for a black hero and they only got an arab fireman named Hussein.

It's hard to believe that he could get elected in an european country, a clear sign of the different way in which europeans and americans define themselves as nations.

We ain't all bigots and knee jerk reactionaries over here sonny.

 

What, in particular, is bigoted about that statement?

A screed such as this appeals to fear and bigotry,you have to be incredibly naive not to recognize that. If Obama is the nominee you will see a lot of this sort of thing. It's something the Republicans do very well, although they will publicly disavow it. Before it is over Obama will be portrayed as some slathering anti-American Muslim fundamentalist lusting after white women. It doesn't work on everyone but it will constantly be in the background and will sway many white voters.

[Primus Pilus]

A screed such as this appeals to fear and bigotry,you have to be incredibly naive not to recognize that. If Obama is the nominee you will see a lot of this sort of thing. It's something the Republicans do very well, although they will publicly disavow it. Before it is over Obama will be portrayed as some slathering anti-American Muslim fundamentalist lusting after white women. It doesn't work on everyone but it will constantly be in the background and will sway many white voters.

 

Aside from the "lusting after white women" thing which I have not heard from anyone, is there anything that you know to be incorrect from the characterization? While he does not seem to be a fundamentalist Muslim, I am concerned with his stance on his own country. In any case, this is the problem itself. Obama is undefined because of his own rather nebulous campaign strategy. His inability to state and stand behind clear positions rather than maintain his candidacy based on charisma and the so-called "hope for change" has allowed more polished politicians (and/or political machines) to define him.

 

He's been the leading Democratic candidate for several months, and I honestly still don't know what he truly stands for.

[Gaius Octavius]

Mubarack Saddam Hussein Osama it's a strange name for a US presidential candidate especialy one that was raised in a muslim country and has a crazy priest that hates US His name makes me remember a scene from the movie Crash when the governor was looking for a black hero and they only got an arab fireman named Hussein.

It's hard to believe that he could get elected in an european country, a clear sign of the different way in which europeans and americans define themselves as nations.

We ain't all bigots and knee jerk reactionaries over here sonny.

 

What, in particular, is bigoted about that statement?

A screed such as this appeals to fear and bigotry,you have to be incredibly naive not to recognize that. If Obama is the nominee you will see a lot of this sort of thing. It's something the Republicans do very well, although they will publicly disavow it. Before it is over Obama will be portrayed as some slathering anti-American Muslim fundamentalist lusting after white women. It doesn't work on everyone but it will constantly be in the background and will sway many white voters.

 

That does not answer the question I posed.

 

'Sonny' as used above is a rather inclement, if not insulting usage, (of course, in my opinion).