about primary in USA

[sonolive]

there is something i don't undersand about the primary in the States ...

Who can vote ? everyone or only the members of the political parties ?
Who organise these elections ? the parties themselves or the government of USA ?

thx in advance ...

cheers
olive

[braincell]

It varies by state law. In some states you have to be a member of the party to vote thus independents will not be able to vote in a primary.

It is ridiculous to me that the primaries are not held on the same day thus giving early states more power. As stupid as it is, this will not change because it is impossible to get any major changes since the states will always fight change.

The states should be abolished in my opinion. They do nothing but fight with each other and create needless bureaucracy and unnecessary paperwork. If one is to move from one state to another, one must get another drivers license. I can't begin to tell you what a hassle this is. The different state agencies have no ability to talk to each other so you have to prove you own your car, have them take a new photo of you, and turn in your plate to the old state. If it gets lost in the mail you will be in big trouble. The fine is $200 a day! You can not turn it in to the new state. If you complain they just get angry at you. You also will have to get a new birth certificate from the federal government. In the name of "homeland security" all of our birth certificates have been made invalid! The new certificate costs money and is yet another pain in the ass. You are required to do all this within 30 days of moving. The states use these fees as revenue which are usually an annual fee. Where I live in Virginia, they are against income tax so instead they make individuals pay with various fees and sales taxes. Obviously this is regressive and a burden on the poor. Taxes should be on the rich not the poor!

[garyb]

it's different in different states. in many states, one can only vote in one's party for primary elections. in others, any registered voter can vote. crazy, but the federal government is not supposed to be more powerful than state government, which is not supposed to be more powerful than local government...

[sonolive]

in many states, one can only vote in one's party for primary elections

so in that case you have to be "registered " in this party !!! right ...

how many people (ratio %) are "registered in the different party , any one know ?

in others, any registered voter can vote

in this case, they can vote for one primary (i mean only for the democrats primary or the repub primary) or can they vote for both primaries ?

thx for all these answers ... i learning things about states , kool !

cheers
olive

[braincell]

The reason we fought the civil war was because the states were bad. It is time to take away all the rest of their power because they are still bad. Case in point:

2005

Kansas education board downplays evolution

1971

The Supreme Court made abortion legal. Ever since then, various states have done everything in their power to hinder perfectly legal abortions including but limited to forced delays and mandatory "education" for all patients.

Many drug laws are dramatically different from state to state. It's idiotic to have one nation with 50 different sets of laws.

[kensuguro]

well, I'm not specialist of the US government (apart from US history in 5th grade), but I think it's kind of like compartmentalizing cell inmates into ethnic gangs. The hostility / competition between parties ultimately leads to easier control from the administrating body. Less people in one group = easy control. Also if one group saw all other groups as a potential threat, the administrating body doesn't even have to threaten each of the groups because there already is enough perceived threat. If everyone united, the small administrating body can be easily thrown over. (learned this from the stanford prison experiment)

Limiting information infrastructure between states also works in a similar way too. People have limited knowledge of how things are in different states, and that limits the urge to move between states. This makes it harder for people to get the "big" picture, putting the administrating body in advantage, since they have information about all states. In other words, limited information makes it very easy to create a bubble to depict a reality that is most beneficial to administrating body.

It's lame, and of course not a very positive way of governing, but I guess it works. I dunno, there's a part of me that thinks power to the people will ultimately fail because most people are dumb and lazy. (not to say there are many that are capable of doing so, just not the majority) I don't think you really want power to fall into those hands.. so you make a system that makes them believe it is. And you maintain a percentage of naive people that are happy with the perceived control they have, and spend their entire lives consuming. You produce, and benefit from their consumption, while not being bothered by what they want.. it's a win win. It sucks, but it makes sense.

[kensuguro]

that's the thing.. the definition boundary of a state or any governing body isn't the issue I don't think. It's just how power is distributed. By definition, China is supposed to be this one big nation, but inside, it's extremely divided, whether by choice or by natural boundaries. The people feel they are united because of the conceptual definition of "China" as one big nation, but in reality, the power distribution is completely broken apart. It just seems like in US's case, it seems to be by design. Or who knows, maybe it's by chance? (that a country with such advanced infrastructure technology, cannot effectively use it to "unite" the states)

I don't think it's a conspiracy thing.. it's just very smart system design. It drives the economy, and keeps the country going. I don't think it's such a horrible thing.

[braincell]

I disagree that it works Kensuguru. We are behind many other countries and falling further yet most people are oblivious to this.

[kensuguro]

I mean, I do agree with you braincell. It sucks for the people. I'm just saying it works to keep the machine moving.

[garyb]

big central government always leads to tyrranny eventually. this is the foundation of the American system. americans don't understand the workings of their own government anymore, nor do they understand that they are supposed to fix problems locally. instead the morons are looking for officials from miles away to control everything....

[Shayne White]

I agree with GaryB. Abolishing the states would lead to supreme federal power with less accountability to the people. A lot of special interest groups are in favor of making the U.S. subject to even bigger government (North American Union). The further away government is, the more tyrannical it becomes. The Constitution was designed so that the federal government would have two responsibilities: defend the U.S. from foreign invasion and manage interstate and international relations. All internal powers would remain in the states, and that's the way it should be.

If the states abuse their own citizens, as was the case with slavery, the feds also have a right to step in. But such powers should be few and defined. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution and therefore Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional.

Shayne

[garyb]

here's the funny thing about the primary, it's just a vote for control over the state's delegates, who actually can vote for anyone they choose....the final election works similarly. this semi-corrupt system works just fine, as long as the state and local governments continue to hold the real power. as the federal government has become bigger and usurped more and more power, the indirect nature of it makes it less and less likely to play by the rules, a vicious circle....

[darkrezin]

Ahhh... isn't democracy marvellous.

[Shayne White]

It's an ingenious way to prevent a few big cities from ruling the rest of the country. The state-by-state, district-by-district approach spreads out the vote and allows the final tally to be more of a consensus of the country as a whole rather than, say, New York and Los Angeles alone.

I don't like the "winner-take-all" system where half of a state's votes are invalidated and changed to the winning candidate. I'm currently doing an initiative drive to change California to honor each congressional district's vote, and that way everyone gets their say. This would only change the general election, though. The primary process is much more confusing.

Shayne

[wayne]

I like Gil Scott Heron's take on it - "First thing I wanna say is - mandate my ass"

[kensuguro]

don't forget you can always put road blocks to shut out communities you don't like. (like they did in miami)

[Neil B]

Thanks for the topic guys - I can understand West Wing a bit more now!

[sonolive]

thx a lot for all these replies, and thoughts ... any way, unfortunately, i still don't have an answer to my question ... maybe the question was bad exposed !!!

so here it is :

i am mister XX :

A - i live in a state where primaries are organised by parties themselves ...
----- i am not registered in any party ...
Can i vote ?

B - i live in a state where primaries are organised by the federal gvt ...
----- i am not registered in any party ...
Can i vote ?
for which primary ? democrat or repub ?
both ?


this directly brings me to ask this :

How many people (in percentage, ratio, %) efectively vote for these primaries ?

i mean how many people among the "active population" vote ?
(in france are considered as active population, people from 18years old -legal majority - to death - only active people can vote)

sorry for beeing insistant but i don't really understand this "primary" ...
i mean it seems to be so important and mediatic ... but here in france, no one tells us who really vote ...

how it works in france ...
Primaries are organised and controlled only by the parties themselves ... if you are not registered, YOU CAN NOT VOTE, so that a very little ratio of people vote for this primary and it is not as important as in USA, i mean they are not systematic, many times, in fact most of the times, the parties choose their leader internally, without any vote or with a very confidential vote ...

thx again for your lightening posts ...
cheers
olive

[sonolive]

okay guys i found my answer ... a canadian wesite ... in french !!!

Première étape du marathon électoral menant à l'élection présidentielle, la « saison » des caucus et des primaires s'étale de janvier à juin. Pour établir un parallèle avec notre système politique, il s'agit d'une forme de « course à la direction » pour les deux principales formations politiques, les républicains et les démocrates, qui a lieu dans chacun des État, à des dates qui diffèrent.

Pour la campagne qui s'amorce, le calendrier a été bousculé par des États qui ont avancé la date du vote afin d'influencer le cours des élections. Cependant, cette décision a provoqué une réaction en chaîne, puisque plusieurs autres États où le vote aurait ainsi eu lieu plus tard ont à leur tour avancé le scrutin.

Parce que les primaires et les caucus sont très nombreux à se succéder dans une courte période, les candidats peuvent difficilement faire campagne dans tous les États. Il est donc fréquent qu'ils ne participent pas à une primaire ou à un caucus qu'ils ont peu de chances de remporter ou qui leur rapportera moins de délégués. Pour passer leur message dans tous les États, ils doivent donc compter sur les médias. Mais l'argent dont dispose un candidat influe de façon déterminante sur sa visibilité dans les médias et sur l'efficacité de sa campagne.

Les règles de sélection des candidats à la présidence varient d'un État à l'autre. La majorité des États organisent des élections primaires, mais le mode des caucus est encore utilisé.

Qui vote lors des primaires?

Ce sont les électeurs qui votent, mais pas nécessairement tous ceux qui sont inscrits sur la liste électorale. Cela varie selon que l'État a une primaire dite « ouverte » ou « fermée ». Dans tous les cas, le taux de participation n'est jamais très élevé, mais la représentativité est évidemment plus grande que lors des caucus.

Primaire « fermée »: seuls les électeurs qui affirment leur allégeance à un parti politique précis peuvent participer à la primaire de ce parti. Théoriquement, les citoyens démocrates se prononcent sur les candidats démocrates, et les citoyens républicains sur les candidats républicains. Ils n'ont toutefois pas besoin d'être membres du parti pour voter. La plupart des élections primaires se déroulent ainsi.

Primaire « ouverte »: dans ce cas, tout électeur peut voter à la primaire d'un parti, même s'il ne compte pas voter pour ce parti lors de l'élection présidentielle. Toutefois, un électeur ne peut voter qu'à une seule primaire. Les électeurs indépendants peuvent participer, tout comme les adeptes du parti adverse! Ainsi, un républicain pourrait participer à une primaire démocrate en votant pour le candidat qui a le moins de chances de remporter l'élection présidentielle contre le candidat du parti qu'il soutient. Ces primaires sont appelées « cross over primaries ».

Pour qui les électeurs votent-ils?

Dans certaines primaires, les citoyens votent directement pour le candidat qu'ils veulent voir à la présidence, mais dans la plupart des cas, ils votent pour des délégués qui affichent leur soutien à un des candidats présidentiels. Enfin, dans certaines primaires, les électeurs votent à la fois pour l'aspirant à la présidence qu'ils appuient et pour des délégués.

sorry it's in french but very very good explaination...

cheers
olive

[Shayne White]

I copied it into an online text translator. It seems to give a generally accurate picture of how elections work in the U.S.

Under the Constitution, elections are conducted by the states, although Congress may make certain rules and regulations. For the most part, the states set the rules. Many states have a closed primary (e.g. California) where you have to be a registered member of the party to vote. With open primaries, you can request which party's ballot you'd like, though you usually can't vote for multiple parties.

Caucuses are different; everyone gathers at a local precinct at one time, and it's kind of a mini-convention which is grand and exciting. Different parties have different rules for how the votes are cast in this case, and it's a lot more party-controlled than state-controlled. One can argue there is more room for corruption in the caucus system.

So -- to answer your question, the U.S. doesn't have one, homogeneous system, it varies around the country.

Shayne