learn me the american presidential race

So far I have this: Four year presidency, two years of which are heavy campaigning.

The primary system varies from state to state, and some states don't have them. The primary system is pointless because there is a way to bypass the results at the convention.

The president, after a process costing an expected 2.6 billion dollars, may have trouble being.....well, a President unless the Senate is on side.

Anything missing? (I am a bemused but very interested Canadian.)

No, not much.

(and in before the lock... )

+1. Pretty close.

The presidency does not have all of the power. Which is by design. The Congress doesn't either, however. Sure, it helps for both to work together, but either can negate the other. And, that's actually a good thing.

Regarding the campaign financing, it's a product of modern times. 100 years ago, a candidate could ride around on a train and "meet the people". Cost was minimal. In today's age, exposure costs money. I can understand the cynicism of the cost, but it's the reality of what it takes to get your message out. Add the news agencies pumping up the election process for ratings, and you can see how the costs are as high as they are.

There is not one single way to get your message to voters. There are in public speeches, TV, Cable, email, internet, radio, etc. If you only focus on one or two (i.e. save costs) you'll get buried.

-Rob

This is the time of year I very much enjoy the fact that I don't watch TV, except for Netflix. EDIT: same with radio, only mp3's and XM.

This does NOT need to get ugly or lockable. I am just interested in the PROCESS. It is very different from ours.

Why do the parties not have a convention first, and pick a leader to represent them? It seems so backwards. If Americans are interested in the process they can still join the party and vote for their choice.

bearmtnmartin wrote: The primary system varies from state to state, and some states don't have them. The primary system is pointless because there is a way to bypass the results at the convention.

The primary system is not pointless, actually--it can only be bypassed if one candidate doesn't get the majority of delegates. The most recent was in 1952, although it has been close before--but again, not since 1984.

You're also forgetting the part about the electoral college--basically, states get so many electoral votes based on their population (number of senators+number of representatives, so 2+(1 to 53)). Whoever wins the popular election in that state, all of the electoral votes go to that person. See the 2000 election for more information on that.

bearmtnmartin wrote: Why do the parties not have a convention first, and pick a leader to represent them? It seems so backwards. If Americans are interested in the process they can still join the party and vote for their choice.

The idea is that the people get to pick their candidate.

bearmtnmartin wrote: Why do the parties not have a convention first, and pick a leader to represent them? It seems so backwards. If Americans are interested in the process they can still join the party and vote for their choice.

And also, many states have open primaries - you don't have to join a specific party to vote for a nominee. Not sure if this is better, worse, or just different than a situation where you join a party and then pick a nominee (essentially a closed primary.)

Actually, after some reflection - isn't the primary process basically what you're describing here? The parties are deciding who they want to represent them in the final election. It's done on a state-by-state basis instead of a huge convention, but mainly that's a logistical issue.

The American system differs from most parliamentary systems in that the chief executive in the U.S. is chosen separately from the legislature. This means that divided government is quite possible, and in fact likely, in the U.S., while in a system where the Prime Minister acts as the chief executive, such a state of affairs is essentially impossible, as loss of legislative support means loss of executive power.

The nomination process in the U.S. is fragmented, as are many things, due to the constitutional rights maintained by the states. Because the system was not designed with powerful parties in mind but instead has evolved into such an arrangement, party rules take precedence in determining the nominees.

The general election operates indirectly via the Electoral College, which essentially divides the race into 50 separate state contests. The electoral votes of each state are then tallied to determine the presidency.

The powers of the President are and were intended to be limited. Many years of courts decisions in favor of executive power, going back a hundred years or so, have tilted the balance considerably in favor of executive independence from the legislature, but the Congress still retains budgetary authority, which is the biggest single check on the power of the President.

It's quite simple really. On paper, there are delegates, and electoral colleges, and citizens votes. In practice, the states with the most electoral college votes, get to pick whoever they want, by law, whether the popular vote matches or not.

In all reality, it's a great charade that puts businesses that fund both parties against themselves. In exchange for campaign contributions, public exposure, and favors while in office, the companies donate huge sums of money to the parties, and pretty much buy the elections. They just hedge their bets to ensure their will gets through. It's been really awesome since citizens United passed, granting corporations all the rights of citizens and enabling huge huge amounts of money to be spent on the races.

It's just another scripted reality show distraction, and a great way to keep the population busy fighting amongst themselves instead of the people they should be fighting, the politicians themselves.

America has the best government money can buy. As much as I would like that to be a joke, the more laws you read, the more true it becomes.

First rule - the main legal power that US political parties have is ballot access. If your party gets enough votes (usually something like 5% for some major office, although I think it varies from state to state), your party gets to pick candidates who automatically get on the ballot as long as they pay a filing fee. It's possible to bypass this and go through some other hoops such as gathering signatures, and run as an independent. But going through a political party gives you access to the party's campaign resources, so usually a politician with relatively mainstream views will pick whichever party seems to be the closer fit and try to be that party's candidate.

The parties used to simply pick things through its own meetings, but they have made some effort to open things up with primary elections. However, the state parties make their own rules about what exactly they're doing, state by state. The end goal of the state process is to decide who they will send to the convention, and who these people will support when they get there.

The rules about the delegates vary from state to state; usually they have some way to require delegates to either vote in some proportion to who won the state primary, but sometimes they assign all the delegates to whoever won the state primary, and sometimes they just pick the delegates themselves and don't tell them who to vote for. The most common system is that there's two separate selections. The primary tells the delegates who to vote for on the first round, while the delegates themselves get chosen through party caucuses. Some states have different variations - the caucus might select the delegates and tell them who to vote for, or the delegates might get elected directly in the primary.

All parties have one universal rule for presidential elections - you have to get a vote where more than half the delegates support you. Getting more votes than anyone else isn't enough - you have to get more than half the vote.

The primary system isn't really bypassed - it's more like Plan A is that the party goes with whoever gets a majority of delegates in the primary, and if nobody can get over half the delegates, Plan B is to have the delegates decide. That way if they don't have someone the state primaries show an overwhelming preference for, in theory the party can hash out which candidate is going to be an acceptable second choice that works for most of the members.

The thing to remember for foreigners (and many U.S. Citizens), is that the political parties are PRIVATE organizations and are really not connected to the government as far as rules are concerned. They can do whatever they want. They do not have to have primaries, they can select a candidate by feats of strength, etc.

Not sure this discussion is OK, but it really is useful info for non-US people, because the process can be pretty wacky.

aircooled wrote: The thing to remember for foreigners (and many U.S. Citizens), is that the political parties are PRIVATE organizations and are really not connected to the government as far as rules are concerned. They can do whatever they want. They do not have to have primaries, they can select a candidate by feats of strength, etc. Not sure this discussion is OK, but it really is useful info for non-US people.

oh, yeah. this. I'd never thought about it, but to an outsider our primary voting must look a lot like a governmental election. What's going on currently in the US IS NOT a governmental function even though it's facilitated by the voter systems run by the government. It's not legally required in any manner.

mtn wrote: You're also forgetting the part about the electoral college--basically, states get so many electoral votes based on their population (number of senators+number of representatives, so 2+(1 to 53)). Whoever wins the popular election in that state, all of the electoral votes go to that person. See the 2000 election for more information on that.

Close. Maine and Nebraska award Electoral votes proportionally, which is really what every state should do if we even keep the Electoral College in the first place.

Javelin wrote:

mtn wrote: You're also forgetting the part about the electoral college--basically, states get so many electoral votes based on their population (number of senators+number of representatives, so 2+(1 to 53)). Whoever wins the popular election in that state, all of the electoral votes go to that person. See the 2000 election for more information on that.

Close. Maine and Nebraska award Electoral votes proportionally, which is really what every state should do if we even keep the Electoral College in the first place.

Good point, and I agree. I think that it is insane that you could win something like 79% of the popular vote and still lose the election.

In reply to Javelin:

24 states electoral colleges can write in whoever they want, regardless of votes. It's cute.

This is a very interesting thread. Thanks for reminding me of things I forgot about.

Here is a good breakdown. https://www.usa.gov/election

This is been the most informative explanation I have read, and I appreciate the answers. I have a much better understanding now of how it all works. When you listen to the news they spout it out like everyone should know what the berkeley a primary is, and I think that most people probably don't really grasp it.

aircooled wrote: The thing to remember for foreigners (and many U.S. Citizens), is that the political parties are PRIVATE organizations and are really not connected to the government as far as rules are concerned. They can do whatever they want. They do not have to have primaries, they can select a candidate by feats of strength, etc. Not sure this discussion is OK, but it really is useful info for non-US people, because the process can be pretty wacky.

Also, my understanding is that political parties in some other countries have considerably more official standing. For example, there are countries where some elections are for a political party, and the party who wins the slot gets to chose who they'll have fill it.

once you get past all the petty surface stuff, we have a pretty damn good system for picking our president in this country.

the people pick the nominees from each party via the primary system, who the people then vote for in each congressional district in the general election, with the president being the person that wins the most districts in the general election via the electoral college. there are some states that divide the electoral votes based on how many districts are won in their states, but most of them are a "winner take all" situation where the candidate that wins the most districts in that state gets all the electoral votes in the general election.

the part that a lot of people forget about- or just have never been told- is that the federal government has nothing to do with the process that a given party uses to pick their candidates. this is why the democrats have the "super delegates" and why some Republican states don't even have primary votes other than the ones that take place in a convention. smaller parties don't even have primaries in each state at all- they just get together in a cheaply rented hotel ballroom somewhere, call it a convention, and choose who they want to represent them on the bottom of the ballot where no one ever looks.

bearmtnmartin wrote: This is been the most informative explanation I have read, and I appreciate the answers. I have a much better understanding now of how it all works. When you listen to the news they spout it out like everyone should know what the berkeley a primary is, and I think that most people probably don't really grasp it.

That's kind of the point. Uninformed people will follow along with whatever their opinion channel says, regardless of facts. And the more confusing and convoluted it is, the more likely people will just do as they're told.

If you want a good read, raff about different caucuses (cauci?). Some are so bizarre, like having people stand in group's, then move around all day through group's to finally get a winner.

But I'm the crazy shiny happy person for thinking it should just be lottery based. Everyone over 25 has their ssn submitted, random number generator picks an ssn. Far more fair and balanced than any of this reality show garbage, could actually fix some things.

One thing people forget, is that the system was designed to be difficult. You need two, or more, differing parties that are strong, in order to not have one party ram down whatever they want. People who moan and cry about nothing getting done need to realize it is for THEIR good that it doesn't happen that way. If you do have one party rule, that is where the trouble starts. The theory is that only the best laws get passed that way.

Now, the biggest issues I have now are super pacs and lobbyists. If we could ban both things would slowly improve. And banning pork attached to bills.

revrico wrote: It's quite simple really. On paper, there are delegates, and electoral colleges, and citizens votes. In practice, the states with the most electoral college votes, get to pick whoever they want, by law, whether the popular vote matches or not. In all reality, it's a great charade that puts businesses that fund both parties against themselves. In exchange for campaign contributions, public exposure, and favors while in office, the companies donate huge sums of money to the parties, and pretty much buy the elections. They just hedge their bets to ensure their will gets through. It's been really awesome since citizens United passed, granting corporations all the rights of citizens and enabling huge huge amounts of money to be spent on the races. It's just another scripted reality show distraction, and a great way to keep the population busy fighting amongst themselves instead of the people they should be fighting, the politicians themselves. America has the best government money can buy. As much as I would like that to be a joke, the more laws you read, the more true it becomes.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

The three large swing states, PA, FL, and OH, is where the election is decided. Take 2 of those 3 and you win.