|
Post by gillianren on Jan 4, 2008 20:21:29 GMT -4
And got mentioned in a Doonesbury comic, which is more than you can say for most Canadian politicians.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 5, 2008 1:35:32 GMT -4
The problem with a short time frame is getting peoples attention. The candidates don't have a party platform to run on like parliamentary elections. They run for the opportunity to set the agenda. It simply takes time for an relatively unknown candidate to build the network required to win in Iowa.
(For those that don't know, Iowa has a caucus system, where people show up after the actual primary vote to select delegates for the party national conventions. It is much more of a network event than straight forward primary elections. They also hold dearly to the notion that they get to select the first delegates. Thus caucus' ridiculously early in January.)
On a broader scale winning an election is building a brand image. People take their time before they will trust a candidate because they want to know that he of she has been fully vetted and they are not going to get taken by slick marketing. People make many decisions on a matter of trust. In elections where you cannot really know what a politician will do in unforeseen circumstances, trust plays a large part.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 5, 2008 6:43:56 GMT -4
I don't know who decided it needed to be two years of campaigning this time around, but I think they need to re-think that decision. Two years is too much. If I know you're starting your campaign tomorrow, it's better for me to start today. Who are the letters from? Tax authorities?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 5, 2008 7:03:12 GMT -4
The main difference between our system of President elections and Parliamentary elections is who selects the executive. In the Presidential system, literally anyone can (and does) run for a party nomination. In a campaign season like this one, with no incumbent or even frontrunner on either side, it takes a lot of time for each candidate to make an impression on voters. Four months would hardly be enough time to sort out among the eight or so candidates in each party. That is particularly true for voters that don’t have a strong party affiliation. In the old days of nominations, before the voting in primaries, candidates were selected through a series of conventions in many states. In Texas it worked like this. You went to a precinct convention at your polling place after the voting was closed. That convention selected delegates to go to a state convention. That convention selected delegates for the national convention where the candidates were actually selected. The result of all this was that candidates were selected by political deals in smoky back rooms. Becoming the nominee was as much a result of insider political clout as it was of popular support. The primarily election for candidates reduces the need for inside clout because anyone with sufficient financial support can make a realistic attempt at the nomination. This broadens the base of potential candidates. In Australia the Prime Minister is selected from among the Parliamentary members of the ruling party. Candidates for each seat are, in turn, selected by party members who live in that seat, usually a group of somewhere between a few hundred and about a thousand people. Usually the party executive endorses these selections, though occasionally it overrules. Of course, these preselection battles can sometimes get ugly. There are a few cases where dead people have remained on the voting rolls, and even managed to vote. There are other cases where campaigning has involved violence. Not quite the smoky backrooms described above, though something similar did once occur. The whole concept of delegate selection, and its equivalent in the Electoral College, misses one very intriguing point - the whole system of selecting a President is incredibly convoluted, yet it almost always results in the victory going to the candidate with the highest primary vote. Which raises the question - why not ditch the Electoral College and simply award the Presidency to the candidate who gets the highest popular vote? It seems to work for many other republics who elect Presidents.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 5, 2008 9:18:33 GMT -4
why not ditch the Electoral College and simply award the Presidency to the candidate who gets the highest popular vote? It seems to work for many other republics who elect Presidents.
It would be an improvement here. Many of my friends from overseas were shocked that Bush won in 2000 with less than a majority of the popular voter. One friend said he had always considered the US to be the most democratic of countries and couldn't fathom the electoral college.
I think we retain the college is because the country has a foundation through our settlement as colonies and later written into the constitution as a nation of independent States. Each state gets some say in how they select delegates to the college. Direct elections would be more democratic, particularly because it would give third party candidates a better chance at winning. Something that is impossible under the plurality rules in most states, where the candidate with a plurality of the popular vote get all college votes. Despite this "undemocratic" concentration of votes, the system we have in not obviously broken either. Thus there is no widespread call to open up such a can of worms as amending the constitution and the election law.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 5, 2008 9:22:36 GMT -4
Candidates for each seat are, in turn, selected by party members who live in that seat, usually a group of somewhere between a few hundred and about a thousand people. Usually the party executive endorses these selections, though occasionally it overrules.
How are the party member who make the candidate selection chosen? Is the process open to all party members in the district?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 5, 2008 16:56:55 GMT -4
I am strongly in favor of the electoral college, and not just because things turned out the way I wanted in the 2000 election.
There's such a thing as too much representation, and majority rule is not always the best option. The electoral college is really all the prevents politicians from concentrating their efforts only in the most populous states. Since they need votes from the more thinly-populated areas they must consider the desires of the less-populated states as well. If there were no electoral college no presidential candidate would give any consideration to Utah.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 5, 2008 16:58:24 GMT -4
I think we retain the college is because the country has a foundation through our settlement as colonies and later written into the constitution as a nation of independent States. Each state gets some say in how they select delegates to the college. Direct elections would be more democratic, particularly because it would give third party candidates a better chance at winning. Something that is impossible under the plurality rules in most states, where the candidate with a plurality of the popular vote get all college votes. Despite this "undemocratic" concentration of votes, the system we have in not obviously broken either. Thus there is no widespread call to open up such a can of worms as amending the constitution and the election law. It's one of the same compromises that gave shape to Congress. Just as every state gets two Senators and Representatives proportionate to its population, so, too, is the intent of the Electoral College to give small states a certain amount of power. There are certainly states which don't maintain the plurality law, though admittedly not many; California is considering changing the law, though I don't think it'll happen. And, indeed, I'm not a big fan of the plurality laws myself, and I think changing them to be a much less drastic solution than the serious amendment of the Constitution. Easier, certainly. I do not, however, believe most third-party candidates to have any realistic chance at even making a decent showing. This actually has nothing to do with the percentage of the vote that, say, the Green Party or the Libertarians get. It has to do with the fact that there are quite a lot of third-party candidates who simply don't get on most state ballots. Remember that the balloting system isn't nationwide; you have to actually get onto each individual state's ballot, and procedures vary from state to state. There are, however, candidates on my ballot every four years from parties I've never heard of, and when I later look them up, I discover they're only the ballot in something like three states. That means they're just not going to win. They won't make their party qualify for matching funds. While I admire third parties in principle, I do not in practice understand the smaller parties going through the effort and expense of running a federal campaign. Surely it makes more sense to make a drive for state office instead!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 5, 2008 19:00:32 GMT -4
The most success third parties have had recently is to siphon off enough votes from one of the major parties to cause the other to win. That doesn't go a long way towards realizing their agendas.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 5, 2008 19:50:49 GMT -4
And, indeed, I'm not a big fan of the plurality laws myself, and I think changing them to be a much less drastic solution than the serious amendment of the Constitution. Easier, certainly. Absolutely.
And there are certainly other Constitutional clarifications that should be taken up first. We will stay with the current system and the last few Al Gore whiners will continue to whine that they were really winners.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 6, 2008 5:16:13 GMT -4
Candidates for each seat are, in turn, selected by party members who live in that seat, usually a group of somewhere between a few hundred and about a thousand people. Usually the party executive endorses these selections, though occasionally it overrules.How are the party member who make the candidate selection chosen? Is the process open to all party members in the district? Membership of a political party is the same as joining any club - you pay your annual membership fees and you're a member. I don't know what the cost is. But once you're a member you're entitled to vote on matters like this.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 6, 2008 8:13:02 GMT -4
Each state gets some say in how they select delegates to the college. Direct elections would be more democratic, particularly because it would give third party candidates a better chance at winning. Something that is impossible under the plurality rules in most states, where the candidate with a plurality of the popular vote get all college votes. Despite this undemocratic concentration of votes, the system we have in not obviously broken either. Thus there is no widespread call to open up such a can of worms as amending the constitution and the election law. What baffles me is my understanding that you vote for delegates to the Electoral College, in the expectation that they'll vote there for the candidate you wanted elected. Yet they have the choice of voting for someone else if the mood takes them. (I read a little about earlier elections on Wikipedia.) There have been a few cases in Australian politics of pollies switching parties mid-term, but that's a bit different.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 6, 2008 9:43:57 GMT -4
As you understand, voters selects a candidate whose party in turn selects the electors. The one time voted at a convention for an elector nominee, it was a mere formality because there was one candidate. There was no discussion and a voice vote with no dissent. It is almost always someone with something political to lose by being unfaithful. Some states have laws requiring the elector to vote with the will of the election, but penalties for faithlessness vary and are not enforced.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 6, 2008 13:24:05 GMT -4
It's very rare for an elector to not vote for someone other than the candidate the people voted for, and as far as I know it's never changed an election result.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 9, 2008 14:21:12 GMT -4
It's not really a dirty trick as such, but it is interesting to note how completely wrong the pundits, most media outlets and pollsters were yesterday concerning Hillary's chances in New Hampshire. Just about every story I read in the last two days had Hillary "fading" and looking for ways to stay in the race. Many polls had her down by 10 points.
I guess it's always a good idea to let the voters actually vote before declaring the winner.
|
|