TIME |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The US Presidential Election Process
Submitted by fotios on Sat, 2007-12-29 20:40.
The US Presidential election process is an interesting and complex democratic practice that for the most part matches expectations for the oldest surviving democracy in the world.
The official process begins almost a year before the actual event of electing the president, with the Iowa Caucuses followed by other state caucuses and primary elections that are part of the process to determine which party candidate will win his or her party's nomination to run for President. However one can argue that the process begins more than a year before the main event, when various people begin announcing their candidancies and engaging in lively discusions and debates.
Basically in each US State, each political party, through the process of a caucus or primary, elects a number of delegates for the National Convention of each party that is to take place just before the presidential election. Normally only registered members of the parties can take active part in the caucus or primary process; however, some primaries are "open" in the sense that either independents or even members of the other party can participate. The situation and rules differ from state to state.
Each one of these delegates is bound to one of the respective party's candidates and it is actually the votes of these representatives at the National Convention of their respective party that will determine which presidential candidate for the party will receive the party's nomination. The number of total available delegates is different for each state (basically in direct correlation to each State's population); however, the specifics are determined by processes and regulations particular to each party and in fact the Democrats have a number of super-delegates appointed directly by the party that are there to ensure that the party itself has a significant say in the matter.
Some info on the specifics of National Conventions
The whole process of electing a US President is outlined, step-by-step here
When the time comes for the actual presidential election, each State elects a different number of electors in the electoral college. These electors, collectively, vote for the nominated candidate they prefer for president (the electors form what is known as an Electoral College): electoral votes by state
Here is a nice diagram (with date flags) of an older presidential election process:
The overall presidential election process is stipulated in article 2 of the US Constitution
Some relevant articles at wikipedia
I don't think so
Submitted by fotios on Wed, 2008-01-09 13:25.
I think the title of a democracy cannot be legitimately given to the UK; it is a monarchy or an oligarchy with significant democratic aspects however. Some of the obvious reasons for that are:
- At a theoretical level, how can one fit the concept of a "House of Lords" into a working democracy? I remind readers that the HOL has veto power over the democratic legislative process. A common argument is "oh well, but when was the last time that the veto was exercised?" but I think that it can be validly argued that maybe many laws that would have been proposed, never were because they would have been vetoed.
- Again at a theoretical level, how can the UK call itself a democracy when there is no corporeal binding contract between the government and the citizens about what their fundamental rights are (e.g. a constitution).
On a more pragmatic level, the UK certainly is a liberal and democratic place but there are still significant problems.
- The British society tolerates but does not integrate. Barrack Obama and his views would have been tolerated and would have even been perceived as refreshing and entertaining but him running for UK prime minister and standing a chance is anywhere between 100 and 500 years away.
- There are social classes that one can clearly see and feel. There is a big social class of true peasants.
- Can't think of anything else right now, which is good! :)
» reply
Yeah - on the
Submitted by Giles (not verified) on Thu, 2008-01-10 10:24.
Yeah - on the structural/theoretical level you're right.
» reply
Voting issues in the US system
Submitted by fotios on Wed, 2008-01-09 13:46.
As far as fairness goes this is a big convo. But to me, a democracy also does not tell you what is best for you; it just gives you rights that you are free to exercise or not. If I prefer to go tailgating before some concert and get stupid-drunk instead of voting, that is my right as well. A vote that is truly motivated is 10 times better that a conventional vote by people who have not thought about it at all. True, this gives rise to the danger of votes being bought; but you see, this is great because again the system trusts the people to take care of themselves and does not 'protect' them by telling them what is best for them or how to protect their rights. This is freedom: freedom from any authority or elite that is supposedly acting in my best interest.
It is difficult to explain the concept of true freedom to Europeans sometimes because there is deeply rooted ancient conventionality in their social upbringing. For the same reasons the right to own a gun and even the right to not wear a seat belt are still being fought for in the most democratic country in the world.
The issue is that the freedom of all needs to be protected and this becomes a challenge (often a bloody conflict) if you are really concerned about freedom and democracy. There is no easy solution but in the process you can also clearly see the gains that you make as a free agent in a world of countries full of 'citizens' that often do not understand at all what freedom or democracy is.
» reply
UK
Isn't the UK an older democracy?
Some interesting stuff about voting here:
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/01/verdict-is-in-our%20voting-system-is-a-loser.html