Understanding US elections

[Cambridgeskip 658]

So here I am on the other side of the Atlantic, occasionally looking at the fascinating and, at times (and youll have to forgive me here) barking mad world of the US Presidential race and I wanted to check that I understand what is going on. So I have some questions. As here and there I am confused.

 

1. Right now the Republicans are having their primaries which is in effect selecting their candidate. I assume these are events run purely by the Republican party, includes only members of the Republican party and is nothing to do with the government either state or federal in any way. Is that right?

 

2. The technicalities are that if someone wins a state in the primary they get to select the delegates from that state to attend the convention in the summer and it is those delegates who technically elect the candidate. Is that right?

 

3. Question, could, in theory, one of those delegates decide hes fed up with the candidate he was going to support and vote for someone else? Unlikely as that may be?

 

4. In years when there is no presidential election is there still a convention? If so who selects the candidates?

 

5. Do Democrat primaries work exactly the same way?

 

6. As the incumbent president is a Democrat and is in his first term and wants to stand again he automatically gets the Democrat nomination. Is that right? Or could someone in the Democrat party, theoretically, stand against him (internally I mean) to get the Democrat nomination? Or does President Obama just get to select all the delegates for the democrat convention?

 

Thanks for any pointers!

 

[packsaddle 753]

1. Yes, mostly. The states determine the dates and voting methods, etc. They have their own laws about registration, etc.

2. Yes, mostly, again. But not all the states are the same. Some assign the delegates proportionally, some do it with caucuses, etc.

3. Yes. But back when I was more directly involved, the people who were chosen as delegates from my state (I can't speak for the others) were told that they were honor bound to vote the way the state voted unless there were circumstances (the candidate drops out or there's an extended floor conflict) that allowed them to place their support for the candidate of their personal choice. I've never actually seen it come to that for my state but it has happened in the past.

4. I'm not clear on this one. If there's no election, why choose candidates?

5. Democrats can be just as entertaining as the Republicans are this year. Yes, believe it or not, some politicians actually switch parties, they're so similar. (tongue in cheek)

6. Yes, someone could challenge him. This has happened before. It won't happen this time. The results of past attempts have shown that Democrats CAN learn from experience.

7. In case you're still feeling that horrified fascination, be sure to watch the Republican convention. The Democratic convention is going to be a snoozer.

 

[Basementdweller 608]

Both Parties are running their primaries right now.....There is no democratic party presidental candidate running against President Obama.

 

2. Yes, but there has been occasion when a candidate won the majority/popular vote but still did not win the state...I was about voting districts.

 

3. Yes members of the electoral college can change votes, but egos would never let that happen....the few I have met are too self important. If they switched their vote, their party would remove them from the post.

 

4. No national convention....but their is always local elections, mayors, council members, judges, trustees, towns, cities, counties, tax levies, new laws... our happen in March and November.

 

5. Yes

 

6. I is possible to run against a sitting president......No law against it....

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Ummm. My answers would vary somewhat from earlier replies.

 

 

>

 

Primary elections are usually run by state and local governments. Caucuses are often organized and run by the parties themselves.

 

Primaries and caucuses may be "closed" requiring previous membership or registration as a party member or "open" where no previous membership is required.

 

>

 

 

Usually, yes they can. This happens most often when a candidate to whom a delegate is pledged drops out as a candidate. The delegate usually then votes for whomever he wishes.

 

As a practical matter, the nominee is decided before the convention begins, so this isn't a real issue.

 

 

>

 

 

Two years after a Presidential election year there are Congressional elections for US Congress.

 

Most state parties have a state convention during those years, electing delegates through a system of party caucuses.

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

[Cambridgeskip 658]

Thanks chaps, I think I understand now. Although it does strike me odd that the government would have any part in running the primaries as it is a purely party political decision. Guess every country has its own ways!

 

And Packsaddle, I meant delegates not candidates, but as there are only conventions in election years the answer is a bit of a lemon.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, have to agree with "barking mad". Glad we can provide mindless entertainment, though we've often found your Parliament to be quite an amusing affair.

 

1. What SeattlePioneer said. Since votin' rolls are maintained by the state governments, as well as the voting equipment, elections of any sort are governmental. This amounts in most cases to a subsidy of the political parties by the state, though in some cases the state may assess fees to the candidates or parties to recoup some of those costs. State legislatures also set the timing for primary elections, and there has been a trend for states to try to move earlier and earlier so their vote "matters."

 

2. Well, that depends, too, but functionally yes. Some states are "winner takes all" primaries, and the delegates get assigned by the state party leadership. In others the voters in each district are actually electing delegates. And things in between, eh, where some are selected locally and some statewide. In at least one state, the primary doesn't technically do anything, because the actual delegates are selected by caucus later in the spring.

 

3. Yes, sort of, it depends. This gets to what you are hearing about the possibility of a "brokered convention". Generally speaking, each state party sets rules for its delegates, and most delegates are bound to their original candidates only for the first vote at the convention. If no one is selected by majority on the first ballot (or if their candidate withdraws or releases them), then delegates are released to vote for whomever they like. In the Democratic Party, there are also "superdelegates" who are current officeholders, who may not be bound at all.

 

I edit to add that this is different than electors from the Electoral College, which BasementDweller mentions. Those are the folks selected in November who cast votes to really elect the President and Vice President. They are "free" on the first ballot to select someone different because there is only one ballot. However, some states have "faithless elector" laws that can subject them to fines or jail time if they do not vote as directed by their state's general election.

 

4. No, no national party convention, because the only national elected office in the U.S. is the President/Vice President. All others are state or district representatives, and the judiciary is appointed. The state parties do have off-year conventions, usually to adopt policy positions more than select candidates, though it depends.

 

5. Sort of, but not necessarily. Democrats, for example, have "superdelegates" who are current holders of elected office. While Democratic primaries are usually held on the same day as Republican Primaries for cost reasons, that is not always the case.

 

6. No, an incumbent president can be subject to primary challenges from within his own party. Indeed that has happened on a number of occasions, though is rarely successful. It is generally viewed as weakening the incumbent and frowned upon, but cannot be prohibited. As a tactic in Senatorial and House positions it is quite common, and the incumbent is sometimes knocked out of the race during their party's primary. An interesting example was Alaska two years ago, where the incumbent Senator Murkowski lost to a Tea Party candidate in the Republican Primary, but then went on to win the general election as a write-in candidate who did not appear on the ballot. The threat of a primary challenge (which can be expensive to defeat) is often used as a way of forcing incumbents to be loyal to the party or supportive of the more extreme elements of the party.

 

Yah, like yeh said. It's barkin' mad!

 

 

Beavah

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[skeptic 997]

Cambridge: Don't feel bad; I have lived here my entire life and still have trouble understanding much about our political system. What I have even more difficulty with are the numerous people that scream about the government, yet refuse to participate in its election.

 

In some respects, it is like the BSA and the complaints about some council operations. There IS a way to deal with it, but it takes more effort than most are willing or able to give; getting COR's to actually participate in mass is a real undertaking. Yet, when it happens, the council almost always changes.

 

Same goes for our elections. If more people actually voted, we might see better results. Do not know if there are similarities in lack of involvement in England.

[Trevorum 24]

So, how do you chaps choose your next monarch?

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Cities and towns, egg boards, milk producers and such mostly choose pretty girls to be Queen for a year at a time.

 

That works pretty well for us. Occasionally it even produces as much drama as your Royals do sometimes!

[Cambridgeskip 658]

Bevah - thanks for the detail, it's certainly complex!

 

Skeptic - We have a similar problem in the UK with people not bothering to vote. And much as it is frustrating that increasingly the 3 main parties all sound the same we are lucky in that we do have an awful lot of fringe parties (Green, UKIP, SNP etc). If the 40% of people who didn;t bother to vote in the last general election all got out there and voted for the fringe parties maybe the 3 big parties would start listening and offer something different.

 

Trevorum - As for our monarchy.... Oh good Lord! The sooner that we as a nation grow up and get rid of that circus and have a democratically elected head of state (personally I favour the Irish model of a non political ceremonial head of state) the better. And a directly (as opposed to appointed) upper house. I have no personal issue with any of the royal family, they are a largely inoffensive mob (that is their job to be fare) and have no actual power but I would rather be allowed to chose who it is represents me.

[Moggie 12]

"So, how do you chaps choose your next monarch?"

 

Very, very carefully, usually after much discussion in a pub over a few pints. If the post is vacant and no suitable British subject can be found we usually ask some German ;-)

 

Cheers

 

Moggie

[packsaddle 753]

OK, this might be a hijack but I need a certain audience so I'm going to take a stab at this.

I travel to places that were once part of the 'Empire' and they are passionate about the game of Cricket. I am so ignorant of this that I feel like a colonial clodhopper when I'm with my friends watching the game.

Someone, Anyone, please explain this game of Cricket in a way that I can understand it.

 

P.S. Yes, I know what you're thinking and I'm aware that no matter what I'm still going to be a colonial clodhopper. I just want to understand the game.

[Cambridgeskip 658]

Cricket: As explained to a foreigner...

 

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So, who needs an explanation of the infield fly rule or how the ground can't cause a fumble?

 

[Moggie 12]

Cricket, a game played in what is considered summer in the UK but winter by the rest of the world.

It consists of two teams, one team will attempt to defend; using a piece of wood (bat), some sticks (Stumps) that have been pushed into the ground, each team has 11 men.

The other team will attack the sticks with a ball from 22yards away with the aim of hitting the sticks and knocking two smaller sticks (bails) off that had been carefully balanced on top. This area is called the wicket. The Ball must bounce atleast once on its way to the sticks.

If the defending player (batsman) successfully defends the sticks and hits the ball with his bat he has the option of running away to another set of sticks 22 yards away (the point from which the ball was thrown), this is called a "run".

The man throwing the ball is called a bowler, he gets six attempts to hit the sticks before another chap on his team is given this opportunity. The bowler must keep his arm straight when throwing the ball.

If having successfully defended the sticks and hit the ball, the batsman can be out if the other team catch the ball before it hits the ground or manage to hit the sticks before the batsman gets there.

The object of the game is to defend the sticks for as long as possible whilst running between the sticks as often as you can.

Once 10 ten men from one team have failed to protect the sticks, the other team has a go.

The matches last a reasonable amount of time - 3 days noramlly or 5 days if its a test, and are interrupted for lunch, tea and sleep.

 

The team with the most runs, wins

 

Hope this helps.

 

Gareth