Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How the Democracy works in US

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How the Democracy works in US

    Dear Friends,

    I need to be informed (as a short summary) about how the US democracy works in terms of Elections and Parties.

    How is the system?
    Why there are only two parties?
    For example is it possible to establish a communist or a racist (lets say extreme politics) party and join the elections?

    Thanks in advance

  • #2
    I can think of at least 5 or 6 national parties. There's generally at least 4 parties on any given presidential ticket. And often an independent or two.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

    Comment


    • #3
      Dear Friends,

      I need to be informed (as a short summary) about how the US democracy works in terms of Elections and Parties.

      How is the system?
      Why there are only two parties?
      For example is it possible to establish a communist or a racist (lets say extreme politics) party and join the elections?

      Thanks in advance


      How is the system?



      This is a great one stop website with a lot of simple info. I use it for my Boy Scouts when I teach the Citizenship in the Nation Merit Badge

      Ben's Guide: Grades 9-12


      Why there are only two parties?

      There are actually many parties but we only have 2 main parties.

      The Democratic Party has its foundations in the Democratic Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

      It was a party stressing the agrarian, small farmer over the business interests.

      Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      It modified over the years, starting with Roosevelt in the Depression Era.

      The Republicans were similiar to the Federalists

      Federalist Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      When the Federalsist fell apart they migrated to the Whigs and a few smaller parties. The Whigs joined with abolitionists and other groups to form the Republican party in 1856.


      Other parties do exist in the US...its just they do not have many supporters. And in order to be on the ballot for an election it usually depends on a candidate or party to have a certain number of registered voters sign petitions by a certain date in order to make it on the ballot. Often times, a fringe party can not get the required number of signatures so they don't make it to the ballot.

      Hope this helps.
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Teskilatmahsusa View Post
        Dear Friends,

        I need to be informed (as a short summary) about how the US democracy works in terms of Elections and Parties.

        How is the system?
        Why there are only two parties?
        For example is it possible to establish a communist or a racist (lets say extreme politics) party and join the elections?

        Thanks in advance
        There are many parties, but only 2 major parties because of our "winner take all" system. We don't have "run off" elections (at least not at the federal level) if a candidate doesn't reach 50% of the votes. All he needs is plurality. Under this system, people throw their support to the top 2 guys because it's easier to win that way.

        As opposed to the parliamentary system like what most of the world uses, we don't vote for parties. We vote for persons to represent us in the Congress. This person represents a district created by the Congress. This person campaigns for himself, with the help of his party, which most likely will have a similar ideals. This is the House of Representatives, whose members serve a 2-year term with no limits. Senate is pretty much the same except the senators represent the state as their districts. There are 2 senators per state and that's final. There are a total of 435 representatives to the house, each state will have at least one. The number is apportioned by population and adjusted every 10 years (I believe) following our federal census.

        We don't have a Prime Minister.

        We do not vote directly for our president. The Electoral College votes for the president. The number of electors in the Electoral College is the same as the Congress, 535 (100 senators + 435 representatives) with the numbers correspond to the number of congressmen each state has. So California has something like 55 votes in the Electoral College (2 senators + 53 representatives).

        When there's a presidential election, we the people vote for the guy we want. Each state tallies up the vote and decide who the victor is. The winner takes ALL the electoral votes of that state. So if you win the popular vote in California by 1 vote, 5 million and 1 against 5 million, you win all 55 Electoral votes. This is the reason why someone could win the popular vote and still lose the election (Al Gore).

        These are all federal elections. The state and local governments can make up their own rules. Most states have a system mirroring the federal system, with a governor and 2 chambers in the state legislature. I think one state has something like France's system, not quite sure on that.

        And being land of the free, you are free to organize racist and hateful political parties. The Nazis are alive and well in the states. We have a communist party. There are a bunch of other racist parties too. But they are non factors in our elections because no one pays attention to them.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gunnut View Post

          We do not vote directly for our president. The Electoral College votes for the president. The number of electors in the Electoral College is the same as the Congress, 535 (100 senators + 435 representatives) with the numbers correspond to the number of congressmen each state has. So California has something like 55 votes in the Electoral College (2 senators + 53 representatives).

          When there's a presidential election, we the people vote for the guy we want. Each state tallies up the vote and decide who the victor is. The winner takes ALL the electoral votes of that state. So if you win the popular vote in California by 1 vote, 5 million and 1 against 5 million, you win all 55 Electoral votes. This is the reason why someone could win the popular vote and still lose the election (Al Gore).
          Actually, no, the electors are not bound to cast their votes for the winner of the popular election. The election in November is not for President, but rather is where voters choose the members of the Electoral College. Its effect on the next occupant of the White House is just as a sort of "straw poll" indicating voter preference.

          While the electors are usually "pledged" to vote for a particular candidate, the pledge is not binding. When the real election is held, in December, the electors are free to vote for anyone they want, including someone not on the ballot.

          US ballots formerly made this clear. At the top of the ticket, you formerly had the choice of voting not for a candidate by name, but for the "Electors for (candidate's name)." That was changed some time in the 1980s.

          Comment


          • #6
            armchair general, albany rifles, gunnut, granite forge...

            thank you very much...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
              There are many parties, but only 2 major parties because of our "winner take all" system. We don't have "run off" elections (at least not at the federal level) if a candidate doesn't reach 50% of the votes. All he needs is plurality. Under this system, people throw their support to the top 2 guys because it's easier to win that way.

              As opposed to the parliamentary system like what most of the world uses, we don't vote for parties. We vote for persons to represent us in the Congress. This person represents a district created by the Congress. This person campaigns for himself, with the help of his party, which most likely will have a similar ideals. This is the House of Representatives, whose members serve a 2-year term with no limits. Senate is pretty much the same except the senators represent the state as their districts. There are 2 senators per state and that's final. There are a total of 435 representatives to the house, each state will have at least one. The number is apportioned by population and adjusted every 10 years (I believe) following our federal census.

              We don't have a Prime Minister.

              We do not vote directly for our president. The Electoral College votes for the president. The number of electors in the Electoral College is the same as the Congress, 535 (100 senators + 435 representatives) with the numbers correspond to the number of congressmen each state has. So California has something like 55 votes in the Electoral College (2 senators + 53 representatives).

              When there's a presidential election, we the people vote for the guy we want. Each state tallies up the vote and decide who the victor is. The winner takes ALL the electoral votes of that state. So if you win the popular vote in California by 1 vote, 5 million and 1 against 5 million, you win all 55 Electoral votes. This is the reason why someone could win the popular vote and still lose the election (Al Gore).

              These are all federal elections. The state and local governments can make up their own rules. Most states have a system mirroring the federal system, with a governor and 2 chambers in the state legislature. I think one state has something like France's system, not quite sure on that.

              And being land of the free, you are free to organize racist and hateful political parties. The Nazis are alive and well in the states. We have a communist party. There are a bunch of other racist parties too. But they are non factors in our elections because no one pays attention to them.
              it is really very different in my country. We vote for the parties not the people but at the end the party president becomes Prime Minister. There is only one election where all the parties are listed on the ballot. So they have the same chance at the beginning. It sounds more democratic but at the end only the parties who had more than %10 of the votes are eligible to be present in the Parliament. So the people who voted for the parties under the %10 barrier are not exactly presented in the parliamant which is unfair.

              But at the same time we also have some radical parties and with this %10 barrier they are always out of the picture. From this perspective it is logical. Nowadays two things are discussed,

              -to decrease the barrier to 5%

              or

              -to have a final election with the parties over %10

              I think the best would be the second solution.

              One final question about US system:

              Who voted in the race between Obama and Clinton?Was that an official pre-election that everbody has a rigth to vote or something special to the members of the Democratic Party?
              Last edited by Teskilatmahsusa; 01 Jul 08,, 22:01.

              Comment


              • #8
                Very interesting :) I have a question about Super-delegates and delegates, not that I understand much about them, but they dont seem to be very democratic IMO where their vote is worth more than an average vote?

                Also is it true you cannot vote for a democrat in primaries if you are not registered with that party and same for republicans? What if your vote swings on the eve before the primaries and you r a repub.. and you change to democrat but you cant vote for them coz ur not registered? I would think forcing you to regester with a party in order to vote, gives you a label and divides, either repub..n or democ..t which is silly IMO.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Just in case it haven't been brought up before,

                  Nations with a powerful executive government tend to have a bipolar party system. Because capturing the presidency is by far the biggest price, parties are geared towards that goal and because you only elect one president at a time, small parties would merge with the big ones. Maximum effort for the one big shot.

                  As opposed to a parliamentary system, in which power is porportionally distributed by the number of delegates in the legislative branch--than it doesn't matter if you are not in the majority, the fact that you are there gives you enough power to go by, encourages a multiplar party system. Little ice-pick pricks here and there and you got yourself a functional alliance.
                  All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                  -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Teskilatmahsusa
                    Who voted in the race between Obama and Clinton?Was that an official pre-election that everbody has a rigth to vote or something special to the members of the Democratic Party?
                    Not being an American someone more qualified would probably call me out on this, but I think you need to be a registered party member to vote in a primary. What prevents saboteurs to vote in an adversarial party's primary is beyond me.

                    Originally posted by Helium
                    I have a question about Super-delegates and delegates, not that I understand much about them, but they dont seem to be very democratic IMO where their vote is worth more than an average vote?
                    The system is designed that way. I don't think that was an oversight. Probably the party feels that the politicians would know who is more likely to win than its supporters, though it is highly unlikely that uncommitted supers will vote against the candidate chosen by ordinary delegates.
                    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Teskilatmahsusa View Post
                      it is really very different in my country. We vote for the parties not the people but at the end the party president becomes Prime Minister. There is only one election where all the parties are listed on the ballot. So they have the same chance at the beginning. It sounds more democratic but at the end only the parties who had more than %10 of the votes are eligible to be present in the Parliament. So the people who voted for the parties under the %10 barrier are not exactly presented in the parliamant which is unfair.
                      I've never quite understood how this works. Is it on a district by district basis? So that the people in each district vote for the party they like, and the winner gets the seat for that district? Or is it national, and each party gets to appoint a certain percentage of parliament members depending on how many votes it gets?

                      One final question about US system:

                      Who voted in the race between Obama and Clinton?Was that an official pre-election that everbody has a rigth to vote or something special to the members of the Democratic Party?
                      The party primaries are administered in each state by the state party organisations, therefore it varies by state and by party. In Iowa and a few other states, it's a caucus system where party members in each district meet together and debate about who to choose for in a rather complicated system. In most states, the primaries are administered in the same manner as actual elections. In some primaries you are required to be a member of the party whose primary you vote in; in other states you can vote in one primary of your choice regardless of your party affiliation. And then there's Louisiana: I'm not even gonna go there. :P
                      I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral View Post
                        I've never quite understood how this works. Is it on a district by district basis? So that the people in each district vote for the party they like, and the winner gets the seat for that district? Or is it national, and each party gets to appoint a certain percentage of parliament members depending on how many votes it gets?
                        it is national. There are 81 districts in Turkiye and 551 chairs in the parlaiment. This 551 chairs are distrubuted among these districts according to their population. For example Istanbul has 70 chairs while a small district may has only 2. This 70 chairs of Istanbul can be distributed among several parties according to the results. (the parties should pass the %10 barrier in national overall). At the end the party who gets the highest majority of the votes so the number of chairs will be the national winner.

                        A party can be winner for 42 small districts (the majority) but this does not mean they are the national winner. Another party that dominated in 10 biggest districts will absoulately be the national winner.

                        But there is also elections for municipalities which is district basis. But this election is on a different timeline.
                        Last edited by Teskilatmahsusa; 02 Jul 08,, 14:53.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Teskilatmahsusa View Post
                          it is national. There are 81 districts in Turkiye and 551 chairs in the parlaiment. This 551 chairs are distrubuted among these districts according to their population. For example Istanbul has 70 chairs while a small district may has only 2. This 70 chairs of Istanbul can be distributed among several parties according to the results. (the parties should pass the %10 barrier in national overall). At the end the party who gets the highest majority of the votes so the number of chairs will be the national winner.

                          A party can be winner for 42 small districts (the majority) but this does not mean they are the national winner. Another party that dominated in 10 biggest districts will absoulately be the national winner.

                          But there is also elections for municipalities which is district basis. But this election is on a different timeline.
                          So in a district with 2 chairs, is it winner take all?
                          I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                            Not being an American someone more qualified would probably call me out on this, but I think you need to be a registered party member to vote in a primary. What prevents saboteurs to vote in an adversarial party's primary is beyond me.
                            Nothing. Just ask gunnut. :P
                            I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Helium View Post
                              Very interesting :) I have a question about Super-delegates and delegates, not that I understand much about them, but they dont seem to be very democratic IMO where their vote is worth more than an average vote?
                              Presidential primaries are a relatively recent phenomenon in the US; the first state to use them was Oregon in 1910. Before that candidates were chosen at party conventions where delegates from each state would vote. We still have conventions, but, depending on the state, the delegates are either bound to follow the results of the primaries or are generally expected to. The votes of superdelegates are not worth more than the vote of other delegates, however, they are not bound by primary results like most delegates. Thus they are not as 'democratic' as the bound delegates -however, as I said, democracy within parties is a recent phenomenon.

                              Here's a couple of useful links: United States presidential primary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                              Superdelegate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                              Last edited by ArmchairGeneral; 02 Jul 08,, 15:56.
                              I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X