DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> US Election Questions from an Australian
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 53, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/06/2008 01:16:25 AM · #1
Hi all

I have been following the US Elections by reading the Australian newspapers, but i have some questions about the processes of elections that aren't clear from reading the articles:

Re this caucus -

Are these votes generated by registered members of the respective parties in each state for or votes from the general electorate?

Is the ultimate presidential candidate simply the one who has won the most states?

What is the significance of these 1st 2 states Iowa & New Hampshire, whilst a vast majority of other states (and from an outsider, strong & influential states like California) get lumped in one day on Super Tuesday?

Thanks! There might be more questions as the process continues..... :)

Nic

Message edited by author 2008-01-06 01:16:59.
01/06/2008 01:20:51 AM · #2
While I can't answer all your questions, I can get this one:

Originally posted by manic35:

Is the ultimate presidential candidate simply the one who has won the most states?


The winner of the election is the one who has the most number of electoral votes. Each state has an electoral vote for each member in the house and the senate that represents that state with a minimum of 3 votes for any state (each state has at least one house rep and two senators = 3 votes).
01/06/2008 01:21:40 AM · #3
I'm going to get this all wrong, but its the way I understand it.

The first two states are significant, because it will determine who gets the money. The majority of the democratic party will eventually settle on one canidate, as the same for republican party (hence a sort of jeopordy), and they will then contribute huge sums of money for the campain to the leading canidate of perhaps the first two states.

Money, of course its the US, Money! Pink Floyd wrote a song like that once, he wasn't American, but it really fits the bill.
01/06/2008 01:30:32 AM · #4
its all about money in this nation. I wish sometimes we were not so money hungry. Money does not equal happiness. One think it does, but in the end it just makes it worse. I would be happy with with love, good health and adventure.
01/06/2008 01:31:09 AM · #5
a brief answer to a complicated question

Yes, caucus' and primaries are for each party to chose their candidate to the general election. Candidates win delegates that go to the party's convention to select a candidate. In some caucuses and primaries, the winner gets all the delegates, other states award delegates according to the percentage of the vote.

To win the nomination, a candidate must have a majority of the delegates at the convention. the convention is held after all the primaries are done. If no candidate has a majority of delegates, then the fun begins. Delegates are only bound on the first vote, after that, anything goes. Lots of back room deals are made and they keep voting until someone has a majority. Usually the nominee is known well before the convention.

Iowa and New Hampshire are important simply because they are first. If a candidate can not finish well in the first 2 states, the usually seen as not viable for the general election. The loser have trouble raising money, getting support, exposure, etc.

Usually the top 3 or 4 candidates in each party will make it to Super Tuesday. There didn't used to be a Super Tuesday, at least not a super as it is this time. But states annoyed with what they see as the undue influence from these smaller states moved their primaries so that their state has more impact.

The candidates like the Iowa and New Hampshire model because the states are relatively small and they can campaign across the entire state and concentrate their efforts there rather than across many large states. That is, they like it unless they lose. Then they hate it. ;-)

I hope this helps.
01/06/2008 01:31:40 AM · #6
Happiness comes from ones heart. Money does help you get enjoyment in life...and meet with some experiences...but what is the point...if you never experience true happiness.
01/06/2008 01:32:25 AM · #7
Originally posted by SamDoe1:

While I can't answer all your questions, I can get this one:

Originally posted by manic35:

Is the ultimate presidential candidate simply the one who has won the most states?


The winner of the election is the one who has the most number of electoral votes. Each state has an electoral vote for each member in the house and the senate that represents that state with a minimum of 3 votes for any state (each state has at least one house rep and two senators = 3 votes).


The electoral votes are for the general election, this is the primaries and caucuses. No Electoral College here.
01/06/2008 01:33:55 AM · #8
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

While I can't answer all your questions, I can get this one:

Originally posted by manic35:

Is the ultimate presidential candidate simply the one who has won the most states?


The winner of the election is the one who has the most number of electoral votes. Each state has an electoral vote for each member in the house and the senate that represents that state with a minimum of 3 votes for any state (each state has at least one house rep and two senators = 3 votes).


The electoral votes are for the general election, this is the primaries and caucuses. No Electoral College here.


Oops, that's what I thought she was asking about. Sorry.
01/06/2008 01:36:27 AM · #9
Originally posted by manic35:

Are these votes generated by registered members of the respective parties in each state for or votes from the general electorate?


Registered voters in most stated, but in some states like New Hampshire, registered independents can vote in either.

Originally posted by manic35:

Is the ultimate presidential candidate simply the one who has won the most states?


Pretty much, and the most fund raised early on. If you run out of money, it means you didn't gain any momentum or support, and can't effectively campaign in the future.

Originally posted by manic35:


What is the significance of these 1st 2 states Iowa & New Hampshire, whilst a vast majority of other states (and from an outsider, strong & influential states like California) get lumped in one day on Super Tuesday?


Um, they've always been first? Actually there's quite a bit of conjecture about getting rid of the caucuses, and going straight to the primaries. The Caucuses are not anonymous votes. You actually have to declare your support in front of a crowd of other people (as I understand it)
01/06/2008 01:44:53 AM · #10
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:

its all about money in this nation. I wish sometimes we were not so money hungry. Money does not equal happiness. One think it does, but in the end it just makes it worse. I would be happy with with love, good health and adventure.


If you think about it, as scarbrd kind of hinted at, the money is not necessarily as much of an issue in the smaller states where TV airtime is not as expensive, and a crowd of 5,000 goes a lot further than in somewhere like LA or NY.

What people do want to change is to move the initial states primaries to places like Missouri and Ohio, which are both swing states and more representative of the overall population of all the States put together.
01/06/2008 01:48:58 AM · #11
The selection process can be very confusing because the rules can vary from state to state. The respective psrties assign a certain number of delegates to their party convention based on many factors. Some are population and some give a state more delegates based on whether a person from their party won in the recent general election. Each state gets to chose for themselves how to select the delegates. Iowa (the first state to choose) uses a caucus method. This is a bunch of people gettiing together to try to decide amongst themslves who to assign their delegates to. They take an informal ballot. If a candidate has less than 15% of the votes in that round, then the people voting for them have two choices- go home or cast their vote for someone else. The caususers with enough votes will get together with those now without a candidate and try to get them to now vote for their favorite. This can go for several levels.

The other method is a Primary. New Hampshire is the second state to vote and they use this method. This is a straight foreward vote. Some states will assign all their delegates to the party convention based on who gets the most in their state, others will assign them based on what percent of the votes they get. To further confuse things, some stated require that people participating in a caucus or primary be registered as members of the respective parties others have open ones meaning that you do not have to be a registered member of that party to participate in their primary or caucus. And then there are what are called Super Delegates. These are usually delegate spots saved for state office holders like governors or representatives. Some states bind their delegates to vote for whomever the state chose (at least for the first round of ballotting at the convention) while some are free to vote however they want to (but will usually respect the voters back home).

As far as money, people like to bet on a winner- hoping to get some favor in the future for backing them. Whoever seems to be in the lead will therefore be able to collect more money to spend on campagining.

Yeah, it is confusing. Most of us do not really understand all of it either.

Message edited by author 2008-01-06 01:52:36.
01/06/2008 01:52:23 AM · #12
You know,
The electoral voting is pretty much like our tax system. If they kept it simple we would have less room for mistakes and cheating.
I would think we would be better off if we would get rid of the electoral vote have a majority vote. It makes no sense to me to have a candidate have the majority but lose beaucse he/she didnt have the electoral.

And for the tax system, have a 25%-35% flat tax. Not matter how much or little you make, you pay it. End of story. Yeah, im a simple kind of guy lol
01/06/2008 01:57:10 AM · #13
OP'er - Good question and thanks to all that has explained very well to the best of my knowledge. If the OP'er don't mind I would like to ask a question that has bugged me for many presidential elections and has come to controversy in the last several years. That's Identification.

Why is it that so many are against requiring a voter show ID in the general election when they cast their vote. I don't see where it's discrimination. You have to have a valid picture ID such as drivers license to drive, or State or Federal ID to purchase such things as tobacco, liquor and beer. Its also required to get into establishments that has age requirements. We have to show ID to apply for credit and a job. What is the big deal?

This is an honest question, not a rant question.

01/06/2008 02:04:10 AM · #14
So who are the delegates? Let me paraphrase and see if I have this correct: They a group of party representatives and each have chosen to give support to a particular nominee. At the conference, they vote and ultimately the nominee is selected. Therefore, the significance of the primaries & caucuses (which are 2 different methods to achieve the same outcome) is to win the most party representatives who have identified they will support you. So it begs the question: If there are 50 delegates for a given state (maybe this is a crazy number, not sure how many there actually are), 30 for Barrack, 20 for Clinton and all head off to the conference, then surely the head count of who has represented who is enough to work out the winner?
01/06/2008 02:43:21 AM · #15
Originally posted by manic35:

Surely the head count of who has represented who is enough to work out the winner?


Yep, and that's usually how it goes. The conventions are usually just a chance for the winner and his/her party to establish their positions on major issues. Only rarely is there a question about who the nominee will be as they go to the convention.

If there is a question, though, you're in the situation described earlier: people start negotiating.

As to your other question, delegates are people who have served their parties over time.

A more interesting question is who the front-runner will choose as a vice presidential candidate - they run together.

Hey, I just found out that Wyoming's Republicans held their caucus today, with 8 delegates going to Romney and 3 to Thompson. Funny that everyone thinks NH is second for both parties.

Message edited by author 2008-01-06 02:43:39.
01/06/2008 02:46:26 AM · #16
Okay - think I'm getting it now.

It's amazing to me how different this process is to ours. I know that we have the westminster which is fundmanetally different to that of presidential campaigns, but still for two countries not too dissimilar in culture, politics couldn't be more different!
01/06/2008 02:48:39 AM · #17
Originally posted by manic35:

... for two countries not too dissimilar in culture, politics couldn't be more different!


No kidding! One of my goals in life is to understand the British parliamentary system. Maybe I can add figuring out the Aussie system, too.

That and cricket. :)

So what's "the westminster" mean?
01/06/2008 02:57:54 AM · #18
Westminster is our system of government - the same as British!

Cricket I definitely can't help you with, but Westminster, I can.... In a thanks to all who have contributed to my question, I will reciprocate with an explanation of ours:

There are 3 mainstream parties: Labour (representing the left) and the Liberal Party & National Party (which are joined in a coalition). We have a multitude of electorates in the country which are represented by a member of Parliament. For example, i live in the electorate of Griffith, culminating about a dozen suburbs in south brisbane. This area is represented by my member of parliament who belongs to a Labour Party Member. As a matter of interest, my electoral seat of Griffith is held by a majority of about 8%. Griffith's member in parliament in Kevin Rudd - who is also the leader of the Labour Party and therefore also the Prime Minister of Australia. At elections, all voters cast votes for representatives of each of the parties (both minor and major). For example, there will be about 6 names on the ballot each representing their party hoping to represent the electorate in parliament. The party with the most electoral seats wins. In the case of our election in November, the Labour party won a majority by 16 seats.

That's it.

Hope this makes sense :)
01/06/2008 03:11:04 AM · #19
Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by manic35:

... for two countries not too dissimilar in culture, politics couldn't be more different!


No kidding! One of my goals in life is to understand the British parliamentary system. Maybe I can add figuring out the Aussie system, too.

That and cricket. :)

So what's "the westminster" mean?


The Westminster system of government, was established after the Magna Carta was signed (if I'm correct).In the UK, it's the House of Commons and House of Lords; in Australia, the House of Representatives and the House of Senate. Basically, the lower house discuss laws (or "bills"), then pass them up to the upper house; if the upper house accepts them, they become law.
That's my limited understanding. ;-Þ

You'll never understand cricket. I know the rules and such, but I still can't understand why people are so passionate about it. Much like baseball, really.... {°¤°}

Message edited by author 2008-01-06 03:12:16.
01/06/2008 02:05:13 PM · #20
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:

I would think we would be better off if we would get rid of the electoral vote have a majority vote. It makes no sense to me to have a candidate have the majority but lose beaucse he/she didnt have the electoral.


I agree, but that's probably a topic for another thread. :)
01/06/2008 11:18:16 PM · #21
Originally posted by manic35:

Hi all

I have been following the US Elections by reading the Australian newspapers, but i have some questions about the processes of elections that aren't clear from reading the articles:

Re this caucus -

Are these votes generated by registered members of the respective parties in each state for or votes from the general electorate?

I can tell you that in the Iowa caucus, in order to vote you have to be registered in which ever political party you're choosing to vote for. In the republican caucus voters make individual votes and the most popular wins. In the democratic they bicker and wager to agree on only one candidate. (I've been to both republican and democrat) Then each precinct turns in their votes and as a state we get the results. Basically all these "preliminary" votings are good for is to weed out the weak candidates and help the front runners beef up their campaign.
01/07/2008 12:31:36 AM · #22
It's simple. The schmuck with the most money and powerful buddies controls the media and the media controls the minds of the sheeple. :)

The nation-wide popular vote has no legal significance whatsoever. 'We The People' do not elect the president. A small group of rich, greedy, power-hungry assholes does that for us. Isn’t it grand?

The way I see it, no one that wants to be president should even be eligible.

However, I also think it's a bad idea to elect a person to a powerful government office simply because they made a few popular movies. I must be crazy!

01/07/2008 01:40:31 AM · #23
Why do my comments keep getting knocked out. I thought my answers were thoughtful, funny, and revealing.

Is it because I said the rich sit around getting hi, trying to figure out better ways of screwing the poor. LOL.

01/07/2008 02:03:11 AM · #24
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:

its all about money in this nation. I wish sometimes we were not so money hungry. Money does not equal happiness. One think it does, but in the end it just makes it worse. I would be happy with with love, good health and adventure.


The advantage is: since I live in a Republican state and it is going to be a Republican state no matter what, I can stay home on election day, whether I'm Republican or Democrat... lol
01/07/2008 02:16:52 AM · #25
Originally posted by Mick:

It's simple. The schmuck with the most money and powerful buddies controls the media and the media controls the minds of the sheeple. :)

The nation-wide popular vote has no legal significance whatsoever. 'We The People' do not elect the president. A small group of rich, greedy, power-hungry assholes does that for us. Isn’t it grand?

The way I see it, no one that wants to be president should even be eligible.

However, I also think it's a bad idea to elect a person to a powerful government office simply because they made a few popular movies. I must be crazy!


well if that was true Ross Perot would have won in the 90's
"we the people" do vote for president as the canidate with the most votes in the state gets the electoral votes..It used to be along time ago that there actually was a electoral college made up of people that elected the president because they belived that the majority of people in the country were too uneducated to vote for the president.
Being the president is a very demanding job when you see the pictures of them when they go in to when they leave office they usually appear to age a lot. I can't even imagine the stress involved. anyway I don't think it is a position that should have someone who dosen't want to be there in it.
I take your last remark was a hit on Reagan which became president for his platform and the giant failure carter was not so much cause he was in movies....

basically I disagree with everything you wrote up there....
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:19:47 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:19:47 PM EDT.