Presidential Election - help for a non-American

Factual Questions
21

I think that one thing people from parliamentary countries have trouble grasping is that the election of the president is a state function. While the president is a Federal official, each of the fifty states chooses its electors differently. The same is true with party affiliations. The primary elections happen on different days for each of the states. This sometimes leads to problems, such as this year’s moving the primaries to ridiculously early dates. In my state, Texas, the major party candidates will likely have been chosen before I even get to vote in a primary. Since Texas is the home of a largely unpopular president, I don’t think the nation is too upset at our not getting choose the next president.

The national election, however, is held on the same day in all fifty states, as mandated in the US Constitution. We will choose electors by voting for a presidential candidate. On my ballot will be all of the candidates who qualified to run in Texas. Therefore, the candidates that I choose from may be different from the candidates in, say, California. I will likely see a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Communist, maybe a Green, and maybe an independent. Texas is a winner-take-all state, so all of Texas’ electors will go to the candidate with the most votes. Sadly, this means that my vote for president has never counted, because I have always chosen a candidate who did not carry Texas. That does not mean that my candidate never made it to the White House, though.

Given the US’ behavior on the world stage lately, I am not surprised that Australia and other nations are paying more attention to the US election. The world would likely be a very different place had the last couple of elections turned out differently. The next president will likely have a huge impact as well. Either the world will see more of the same, which many will not like, or the world will see a dramatic change in many ways.

Another point not made so far is the unusual field of candidates in both parties. The Republicans have a wide-open field because the president cannot run (term limits) and the vice president has chosen not to run. The 'pubs have the guy who was mayor when the Twin Towers fell, the governor of a state where a much-reviled (to Republicans) president was also governor, a TV star, and some folks will little name recognition. On the Democratic side, we have a woman, which is unusual in itself. This is exacerbated by the fact that her husband used to be the president. Then, we have a Black man also. Not only is he black, but he has a Muslim sounding name. And, as if that weren’t enough, his name sounds similar to a much-hated Muslim who has fostered attacks on the United States. Both the former First Lady and the black guy with the funny name are the front-runners.

It’s going to be a wild ride.

22

Isn’t it mandated by federal law, not the Constitution? I don’t think there’s anything in the Constitution regulating the date of the election of the electors.

23

You are correct. I made an error. I was thinking of the whole Tuesday general election business, but I misremembered where that came from. I have since searched the constitution and conclude that you are correct. :smack:

24

Most UK political parties now simply elect their leaders in postal ballots of all party members.

The exception is the Labour Party, which has an electoral college divided between MPs (and MEPs), party members and the trade unions. That does require holding a party conference (either the standard annual conference or one specially convened for the purpose), but that simply counts the ballot papers. All the votes from each of the three sections are cast beforehand.

So, yes, from a UK perspective, the US system does seem incredibly cumbersome.

25

This was punishment by the national party offices in response to those states scheduling their primaries before the party said they could have them. The early scheduled votes was in response to New Hampshire’s highly disproportional affect on the primary election.

26

Really? It looks like, with FL and MI out of the picture, the superdelegates (and the other unpledged delegates) will still be able to sway the choice even after Super Tuesday. Are they under any obligation to choose (or remain faithful to their choice) before the convention?

I count 1,825 pledged delegates – which will be divided by proportional representation – and 573 unpledged delegates. Unless a single candidate can get 1,500 of the 1,825 delegates up for grabs by then, and get all of the superdelegates to defect* to them, I don’t know how it can be certain by then unless the trailing candidates decide to drop out. Is there a candidate who is going to have 82% of the Democratic vote by then?

Also: how weird is it that both Sens Obama and Clinton - as sitting senators - are themselves counted among the superdelegates?

    • okay, it seems reasonable that the uncommitted superdelegates will recognize or realize the futility of voting for anyone but the winner, and that they will vote as a unified bloc at the convention. Especially if a candidate does manage to get 82% of the vote by Super Tuesday.
27

Not particularly weird. Superdelegate slots are given to DNC officials and all Democratic members of Congress. Going back to 1972, a large number of Democratic candidates were also superdelegates at the convention.

28

You’re making the totally unjustified assumption that the superdelegates will not commit to candidates before the convention. They will. Many already have.

(Exact numbers for any particular candidate are disputed there, but exact numbers are irrelevant for this discussion.)

They will not affect the outcome one iota. After SuperTuesday you’ll see a rush to back the nominee.

29

I write without having looked at the rest of the thread.

First, I wish to change your perspective. The US government confuses many non-Americans because it seems like it is a “parliamentary democracy” but is not.

It is a fairly unique system. The founders wanted a representative democracy but they did not want the “party politics” that they had observed in the British parliament. They also distrusted the power of government, so they favored a government that put up significant hurdles to rapid change or decision.

With that in mind, the current system has a split personality. On the one hand, “anyone can grow up to be President”, and traditionally the presidential candidates have come from various parts of the country, representing geographical/class/religious/economic interests as much as “party” interests. On the other hand, despite the early “no party” idea, two large parties have evolved.

The result is a two-party structure without the rigorous rules and organization that one finds in UK, Australia, etc. Parties have chairpeople, but these are not the party “leaders”. One does not have to be a party leader or even party loyalist to seek a party’s nomination.

Instead, anyone can run for office. Normally a candidate joins a party, mostly to gain the organizational and monetary support that the party eventually provides. Many people identify themselves as a member of one of the parties, and vote along party lines, which gives a “party” candidate a set of “guaranteed” votes.

Note that the number of non-aligned people is so large that neither party can usually claim a majority of voters. These “undecided” voters are the key for any candidate at any level.

Most states have laws regulating who can be on the ballot. Any person of any party who is otherwised qualified for the office can run, but few are likely to run without the support of a major party. It is the parties that set up how to nominate their candidates. It’s in their best interest to nominate one candidate per office (maximizing the power of their party’s vote), which they do.

The process of choosing a candidate for a party varies from state to state. The states have the supreme power to legislate this process, since it’s not otherwise stated in the Federal Constitution. So, for example, Iowa chooses candidates in “caucuses” instead of voting.

Most states, though, use a popular vote to choose. This is called a “primary” election, in which voters choose the party’s candidates for all the offices up for vote in the main election. Outside the US you may only see the Presidential race, but in my state (California) the offices on the ballot go down to the local level.

Though most states vote, the process and results vary. Some states allow people to vote for any candidate of any party, but only one vote. In one of these states, I could vote for Obama, Clinton, or Guiliani, but I could only choose one and not one Democrat and one Republican.

In California, though, if I am registered Democrat I can only vote for Democratic candidates. If I am independent and not registered with a party, I can vote but I must state beforehand which party I plan to vote with, and I can only vote for that party’s candidates.

The vote chooses a candidate except for POTUS. The POTUS vote chooses delegates to a national convention which then chooses a POTUS and VPOTUS. In most states, the candidate who wins his or her party gets all the delegates, but some states distribute them among candidates according to vote percentages and mandate that the delegates must vote for their assigned candidate for at least the first round.

In older times, primaries were unusual and parties chose candidates at the convention, with a lot of dealing and politicking. The candidates were “chosen” by the party power brokers, usually senior legislators from the US Senate. As the US evolved into an urban society, the grand legislators faded from view, replaced by party bigwigs from the most powerful states and cities.

This old process wasn’t very open or fair, and the move for “good government” in the early 1900s replaced these backroom convention deals with primaries. The problem with primaries is that they’re not held all at once, so the results of an early primary influence those of later ones. California recently switched to an early February primary for POTUS only to give more influence to CA voters.

Despite the results of a primary or convention. nobody is stopped from running in the general (final) election. For example, if Hilary lost the Democratic nomination to Barak, she could still run for President. She wouldn’t be able to run on the “Democratic ticket” because states have laws that ensure that the party’s candidate is the one who appears for that party on the ballot. In CA, at least, she could still be on the ballot; she would have to get a certain number of signatures on a petition (but that’s a requirement for all candidates).

Whew.

Now I observe that this is not the way the UK works. Our parties are less powerful, and elections are much more of a free-for-all. Party rigor isn’t enforced. In a nutshell, UK/Aussie parties expect lock-step loyalty to the party (with exceptions that I won’t detail here), and they expect that the leadership will choose future leaders, groom them, and move the best one to the front.

It’s much more democratic in the US.

30

Which is the major reason it looks like such a confusing mess… :smiley:

31

To follow up:

These conventions we are talking about rarely (almost never) amount to any actual debates and voting among the delegates. What happens in that the person who wins the first few primaries (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan) creates a huge surge in momentum and forces the other candidates out of the race. This is why a small state like New Hampshire is in the national news for its voting. The winning candidate will roll through the late primaries pretty much unopposed and the final delegate count looks like this:

Candidate A: 1,547
Candidate B: 33
Candidate C: 2

Candidates B and C got their delegates from these early primaries, and at the convention, show party loyalty by telling these delegates to vote for Candidate A. All is happy at the convention which is nothing put a four day show for Candidate A to win in the general election…

32

I can guess why the UK media, & thus the BBC, & thus by their worldwide reach the rest of the Comonwealth, are unusually interested in this election. News media are attracted to the familiar name & the odd story. Hillary Clinton offers both. Also, one candidate is married to an “Essex girl”, & another lived in Indonesia as a child, which is a refreshing change from the insular & provincial candidates that are the norm for a country’s major elections.

Sort of like how I can’t name an Indian party leader in contention for PM since Sonia Gandhi. :slight_smile:

33

Hey, you foreigners aren’t supposed to look while we’re going thru this crazy process!! Trust me, most Americans don’t understand it, either.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is a rare occasion when neither the sitting president nor the sitting vice president will be on the ballot. That makes it a lot more up in the air than usual.

34

And, unlike when I was growing up, not covered gavel to gavel by the major TV networks. I suppose they don’t want to lose all that advertising revenue from showing party ads, and I can’t say I blame them.

In California the Republican primary is closed while the Democratic one is open. I can understand open primaries - since so many people are registered independents these days, allowing them to vote might yield a more electable candidate, and one not chose by the extreme wing of the party faithful.

Do people vote directly for delegates any more, or just for candidates? I don’t remember seeing delegate names, though it’s been a while since I voted in a presidential primary, living in California where it didn’t make any damn difference until this year. A friend of mine in college who was a poly sci major did a term project of running as a McGovern delegate, and won. His name was on the ballot, but that was a long time ago.

35

BTW, it’s worthwile to note that one of the catalysts for moving to binding primaries was the 1968 Democratic convention, and the riots that occurred. Primaries had existed in some states many decades before then, of course. They were a popular idea during the Progressive era, but did not become the dominant force they are today. In 1968, liberal antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy established a huge amount of grassroots support within the Democratic party, and won many of the (nonbinding) primaries. However, Hubert Humphrey eschewed primaries, signed up delegates through the traditional wooing of party bigwigs, and got the nomination on the first ballot. The situation in 1968 was explosive enough, and the feeling by McCarthy supporters that they’d been jobbed by their own party pushed it over the edge. In the aftermath of that convention, the Democratic National Committee reformed their nominating process, preferring the binding primary which obligated delegate votes on the first ballot at the convention. The Republicans quickly did the same thing.

36

We’re just hoping that the next US President doesn’t ‘invade Iraq’. It is truly astonishing to see how the massive sympathy + support for the US here after 9/11 has been totally thrown away by Bush. :frowning:

P.S. Everything I know about US Presidential elections comes from watching the West Wing. I look forward to a candidate being drafted from the convention floor…

37

So do some die-hard “Draft Gore” folks…

38

You vote for candidates. The number of delegates each one earns is calculated by the state party and expressed as the number of delegates pledged to that candidate at the convention. (Normally pledges are good through the first vote, after which they are released to vote as they want. They may be released by candidates dropping out of the race earlier. Every state is different. Check local times and listings. Not applicable in Mountain Time Zone. Void where irrational. Never read the fine print.)