Excuse my american political ignorance...

by **Norse** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:00 am

But how does your system work?

We hear of these pre-elections and what-not, the black dude and the bass player winning iowa, or something, and ron paul getting some votes..

How does your system work?...how would one go about being elected within your current system?

by **CrazyAnglican** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:11 am

Do you want a cynical or forthright answer?

by **Russianfire8371** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:11 am

Norse wrote:But how does your system work?

We hear of these pre-elections and what-not, the black dude and the bass player winning iowa, or something, and ron paul getting some votes..

How does your system work?...how would one go about being elected within your current system?

I dont think anyone really knows....

by **AndyDufresne** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:15 am

Roughly a year before the 'Actual Election' there are some mock elections...I.E. Caucuses and Primaries. These essentially weed the political field to just the front runners with the most support.

The first 'test' for political candidates is in the state of Iowa. The Iowa Caucus. The Democratic Party's way of conducting a caucus is different than that of the Republican Party's, but the end goal is the same...to see what candidate has the most public support. For an example, in the Iowa Caucus this past January 3rd, roughly 220,000 people from the state of Iowa participated in the Democratic Party's Caucus. Around 120,000 people participated in the Republican Party's Caucus. Barack Obama, a presidential candidate, won the Democratic Caucus with 38% of the "votes." Two "top" other candidates finished with 30% and 29%. And of course there was a 2% and a 1% at the bottom. On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee finished with 34%. Other candidates finished with 25%, 13%, 13%, and Ron Paul, who you speak of, with 10% (and of course a few bottom finishers also).

Now the field has been thinned, and on the candidates go to the New Hampshire Primary, slightly different than the Iowa Caucus, but serving the same function...to figure out the top candidate of each party. This will continue through as states hold primary and caucuses (though there is considerable less attention and campaigning after the third or so 'pre-election'). Eventually a front runner in each party will be seen, and they will most likely become that Party's nominee for President.

Then once the nominee is figured out, they pick a Vice President to run with, and off campaigning they go around the United States, championing the various points of their respective party.

Something like that.

--Andy

by **Norse** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:34 am

Thanks for that andy, much clearer now.

Does this same process happen for every state? or only the 2?

by **AndyDufresne** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:56 am

Every state will hold a caucus/primary. But by about the third (in the state of South Carolina) the political field is basically set (though some upsets could still come out of all the other "pre-elections.)

--Andy

by **luns101** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:12 am

Yes, and states are trying to move up their primaries earlier every year. When the Florida Democrats moved up theirs they got into trouble with the national Democratic Party.

by **Fieryo** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:47 am

I'm from a state whose primary isn't for another 5 months, so by then not only will the choices for who I can vote for be whittled down to half of what there is now, quite frankly, my vote won't matter much. That's not cynscism just reality :wink:

by **MeDeFe** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:40 pm

Why aren't they all one one day, or at least within one week? What's the point of spreading them out like that?

by **got tonkaed** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:16 pm

MeDeFe wrote:Why aren't they all one one day, or at least within one week? What's the point of spreading them out like that?

in theory to give candidates time to campaign in each states, and i guess hear the issues and how people feel about them across the country...

or to spend and recieve more money. Its one of those.

by **MeDeFe** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:31 pm

So essentially to give them the time to set the sails according to the political wind in every state instead of having to formulate a position that's actually feasible on a national scale should they be elected.

by **satanspaladin** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:33 pm

why do your states have different law ,are you not all one country ?.

by **got tonkaed** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:35 pm

satanspaladin wrote:why do your states have different law ,are you not all one country ?.

its part of the federal system....seemingly when the country was first found, states rights were far more important than national level rights. This has change a lot since then, but the system is still set up to give states some level of say.

by **riggable** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:39 pm

satanspaladin wrote:why do your states have different law ,are you not all one country ?.

there are national laws, which encompass all states, and all 50 states have to follow these laws.(an example of this is, no mentally retarded people are allowed to be executed, in any state)

then there are state laws, which differ from state to state(gay marriage is allowed only in massachusetts)

by **muy_thaiguy** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:06 pm

satanspaladin wrote:why do your states have different law ,are you not all one country ?.

As said earlier, the Federal Government and the States take care of different kinds of laws. It also depends on the region you live in (Wyoming, for example, 48% of the land is Federally owned, and the water is owned by the state, also the first state to give women's sufferage), while the Federal Gov takes care of International trade, alliances, and a few other things along those lines. But one law that many seem to think needs to be Fedralised (but it is not), is Hate Crime Laws. To put it simply, it may be a must-have for some states, but not all. A simple example would be the Matthew Shephard case from 1998. Two conflicting arguments for his death were that he was killed simply for being gay, or that it had something to do with drugs (which I find a bit more believable because my town has a few problems with drugs). Anyways, when it became national (possibly international) news, alot of outside groups were pushing for Wyoming to accept Hate Crime Laws, even though the murderers were facing either life in prison or the death penalty. Hell, even his parents didn't want it to be pushed. The reason being, is that the people of Wyoming are more of a live and let live kind of people (granted there are some exceptions, but that goes for everywhere) who could care less if you are gay, black, white, etc. But the onething that pisses people off here is when outside people try to push us to have laws that we have done fine without.

In the end, both of Shephard's killers recieved life in prison for their crime. Wyoming still doesn't have hate crime laws because we believe that no one should be treated with more rights then anyone else. Though for other states, it may be a must have, does not make it so for all states. And this is what makes the US an interesting place, not to mention if you ride a horse to school here, the principal has to take care of it during school hours. :lol:

by **MeDeFe** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:10 pm

How many people ride a horse to school there?

And btw, it's spelled 'suffrage', there's no 'e' in the word.

by **muy_thaiguy** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:17 pm

MeDeFe wrote:How many people ride a horse to school there?

And btw, it's spelled 'suffrage', there's no 'e' in the word.

Sorry about that.

Anyways, as far as I know, people that own horses tend to live almost to far to reasonably ride it to school. But it's just one of those laws that has been around since Wyoming was a territory.

by **MeDeFe** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:14 pm

I think if I went to school there I'd take the horse to school just for the hell of it. At least once.

by **muy_thaiguy** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:15 pm

MeDeFe wrote:I think if I went to school there I'd take the horse to school just for the hell of it. At least once.

Yeah, there's times I wished I had done it, then again, I don't own horses.

by **MeDeFe** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:17 pm

muy_thaiguy wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:I think if I went to school there I'd take the horse to school just for the hell of it. At least once.
Yeah, there's times I wished I had done it, then again, I don't own horses.

And you didn't know someone you could borrow one from?

by **luns101** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:14 pm

Norse, you should also know that it's an unwritten rule that anyone campaigning for president who hails from Arkansas must play a musical instrument.

by **mybike_yourface** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:22 pm

Norse wrote:But how does your system work?

We hear of these pre-elections and what-not, the black dude and the bass player winning iowa, or something, and ron paul getting some votes..

How does your system work?...how would one go about being elected within your current system?

it's all about money.

by **Napoleon Ier** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:33 pm

luns101 wrote:Norse, you should also know that it's an unwritten rule that anyone campaigning for president who hails from Arkansas must play a musical instrument.

you don't like people from Arkansas?

by **DirtyDishSoap** on Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:38 pm

Norse wrote:But how does your system work?

We hear of these pre-elections and what-not, the black dude and the bass player winning iowa, or something, and ron paul getting some votes..

How does your system work?...how would one go about being elected within your current system?

Your just too ignornant to understand :wink:

j/k