Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5314 posts, RR: 53 Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2393 times:
The point of a primary election is to decide each party's nominee in the general election. By voting in the primary, you're selecting delegates for your state for each party who are bound to vote for a certain candidate. Thus the candidate with the most delegates wins the nomination. To say that primaries count for "nothing" is ill-informed at best.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
JetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3037 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2387 times:
Dude calm a little, I didnt rely on here to ask. Its a simple place to ask, its generally correct, and i happened to be on the site when the news was talking about the primaries. So yeah, just calm a little k?
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4424 posts, RR: 16 Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2384 times:
For what its worth, I never really knew what a primary was either until just a couple years ago. They never taught anything about it in school.
So yes, the education system does fail often when it comes to teaching politics.
Anyway, to answer the author's question, primaries are held with the purpose of selecting the candidate who will become the party's nominee.
In this election year, we had 10 democratic candidates for president, and on the republican side, we have President Bush. He's the incumbent...or sitting president, and is not being challenged for the nomination by any other republican. So, on the republican side, he is running unopposed.
The primaries give the candidates a chance to get their message out to the people. Then, based on how their message appeals to the public, how hard they campaign, and how their character comes across, the voters will choose the candidate of their choice.
Any candidate that receives 15% or more of the popular vote in a state primary, will receive some delegates. Delegates will be divided amongst the candidates based on how much of the popular vote they have captured. Each state has a certain number of delegates up for grabs. Candidates need to win a good amount of the vote to win these delegates. When the Democratic National Convention in Boston comes around, the candidate who has the most delegates will become the Democratic Presidential Nominee. There is a minimum of 2,161 delegates required to receive the nomination, and a majority.
Once the nominee is selected based on who has won the most delegates, he or she can now pick the Vice President of their choice. Usually the vice president is selected by the nominee based on number of delegates captured, public appeal, and strength that he or she can add to the ticket. The goal after all is winning enough votes to become president in the general election, and having a vice president who may appeal to groups that the nominee does not...can help increase the chances of winning for the nominee.
Now that the nominee, and the vice president, are selected, they will run against the incumbent president (in this instance).
Because the nominee and the vice president likely have already campaigned in most of the 50 states, they have already established some of their voter base for the general election, as its likely those who voted in the primaries and caucuses will vote for the nominee of the party. The important thing now for the nominee to do is win the votes of the undecided voters, independents, and yes, some voters from the opposing party too. So now the campaign shifts gears from trying to appeal to the primary voters in each state...to trying to appeal to the voters of the nation as a whole. No easy task.
By November, campaigning ends and the general election occurs, and the voters of the nation vote for their presidential candidate.
I'm going to assume here that since you didnt know what the point of a primary was, you probably don't know how the electoral system works either. I didn't for a long time. Here's how it works:
The electoral system in presidential elections is only used during the general election and not during the primaries. Each state has a certain number of designated electoral votes based on the population of that state. For example, a rural state like Idaho only has 4 electoral votes, but a populous state like California has 55 electoral votes.
What happens is that the voters cast their ballots in each state for who they want to be president of the United States. Once all the votes have been cast and counted, ALL the electoral votes of that state go to the winner of the popular vote within that state.
So lets say that in California, John Kerry gets 57% of the vote, and George Bush gets 34% of the vote, and independent candidates get the remaining 9% of the vote. Because John Kerry got a majority, all 55 electoral votes will be awarded to the Democratic party, and thus John Kerry will have "won" california. He now has 55 electoral votes to his name.
Now let's say that in Texas, which has 34 electoral votes, George Bush wins with 72% of the popular vote. (just as an example). Then all 34 electoral votes from Texas become his.
This continues, state by state, until the election is over. As a candidate wins a state, the electoral votes from that state become his. At the end of the election, whoever has won the most electoral votes, becomes President of the United States.
In the event of a tie, the supreme court will decide who becomes president, as far as I know. That almost had to happen in 2000, as it was unclear who had won florida. Lots of unaccounted votes made it hard to tell who won the popular vote in that state, and thus the electoral votes first went to Gore, then to Bush, and stalled there while recount after recount took place. The supreme court stopped the recount, leaving Bush with the electoral votes and the victory in the 2000 election. We may not ever truly know just what the final results in florida were. But, that's over and done with now.
Hopefully that will explain how it works.
I suggest to get a better idea you check out this page. It's an interactive map on John Edward's site which shows you who would have to win what states to get enough electoral votes to become president:
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1362 posts, RR: 60 Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2375 times:
In the event of a tie, the supreme court will decide who becomes president, as far as I know. That almost had to happen in 2000, as it was unclear who had won florida.
The rest was a good explanation, but this is incorrect. If no candidate receives a majority of all electoral votes, the election will be decided by the House of Representatives. Each state delegation gets one vote, and the candidate with the most votes becomes president. The drafters of the Constitution did not foresee the current two-party domination, so they thought that this procedure would be common. In fact, it has only happened a few times.
The reason the Supreme Court got involved in 2000 is much more complicated. When the votes were initially counted in Florida, Bush held a slim lead. Certain counties voluntarily decided to conduct manual (hand-based) recounts instead of relying on automatic punch-card or optical systems. Gore also filed suit demanding mandatory hand recounts in certain counties, specifically counties that leaned heavily toward the Democrats (Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade). After numerous appeals and other legal proceedings, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor.
The US Supreme Court decided to hear the case primarily because different counting standards were being used in different counties - remember hanging chad, tri-chad, pregnant chad, dimpled chad, etc.? They ruled 7-2 that this was a violation of the Constitutional right to equal protection under law. According to the ruling, a full manual recount could be conducted if a statewide uniform standard was developed. However, a whole new statewide recount could not be completed in time to meet a specific deadline regarding the certification of electors called the "safe harbor" provision: if electors are certified by that date, that state electoral delegation cannot be challenged in Congress. The Court ruled the Florida legislature had explicitly attempted to meet the safe harbor deadline in designing election procedures, and that this timeline should be binding on the vote-counting schedule. Thus, the Court voted 5-4 to suspend further recounts and the final tally of Bush winning by 534 votes was certified.
If this ruling had not occurred and Gore had edged Bush in manual recount, the matter would have gone to Congress, since there likely would have been two competing slates of electors, one endorsed by the Florida legislature and one endorsed by the Florida Supreme Court. Statistically, the Republican delegations outweighed the Democratic delegations, but it would have been very, very messy. In any case, several independent media examinations of Florida ballots show that Gore would not have beat Bush if the recounts had been completed.
Another issue involved was that the Florida Supreme Court assumed to itself the power to set standards and procedures for vote counting. Constitutionally, this power is clearly delegated to state legislatures. In ignoring the deadlines and standards enacted by the Florida legislature, the FL Supreme Court was treading on very thin ice. The US Supreme Court overturned its ruling on the recount 7-2 based on equal protection grounds, but a concurrent opinion signed by three justices argued along this delegation of powers line.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29514 posts, RR: 59 Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2370 times:
If this ruling had not occurred and Gore had edged Bush in manual recount
It should be noted that not a single recount conducted by any government or private entity ever came out with Gore having a higher vote then GW.
Also it should be noted that primaries are not limited to presidential offices, in fact the presidential election is a piss poor example of a primary, due to some of the intricacies of the electoral system.
In the simplest terms as mentioned before the primaries are where political parties nominate or elect a canidate to a run at an office during a general election.
Now one of the biggest political p!$$ing contest in recent year, has been over open and closed primaries. A closed primary means that only member of said political party can vote in a primary election for that parties nomination. Typically say a democratic voter will get a ballot that lists only democrats, a republican will get a ballet that only list Republicans. This is done so that one party can't get a weaker opponent nominated by the opposing party by voting on their ticket.
. In an open primary, anybody can vote for anybody and the top vote getter from each party then becomes that parties nominee.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39437 posts, RR: 76 Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2357 times:
I feel your level of disgust.
I was irrate when our high school combined economics and government in to a one semester class. Then they combined geography and history in to a one semster class. On top of all that, they mandated physical education for all 4 years! This was back in 1989.
I am sure it's even worse now!
Geography, economics, government and history are all too broad and diverse of a topic to be chopped in to half semester classes by tachers who aren't skilled in that area.
Reading the post by some and I repeat some of the teenagers here is very sad. I got out in a nick of time. (1991)
I don't want to get off topic but Garnetpalmetto explained it good enough.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
One note that should be made to complement the excellent info in Aloha's and B2707SST's posts. As they said, ALL the electorial votes of a state go to the winner of the popular vote in that state.
The number of electors for each state is determined by the total number of congressmen plus senators the state has in the U.S. Congress. As the population of congressmen (House of Representatives) is determined by population, but the Senate has equal representation of two senators per state, this means that the smaller, underpopulated states have a slight advantage over highly populated states. This is the result of negotiations made during the writing of the Constitution, when small states like Conneticut or New Hampshire were afraid of being completely dominated by the larger states like New York and Virginia.
This explains how GW Bush won the 2000 election in spite of not winning the popular vote. He won most of the low-population states, like the plains states, Alaska as well as a lot of bigger states like Texas. The slight weighting of the electoral college to favor low-population states was enough to tip the election in Bush's favor. Gore had most of the electoral votes from the really big states, like California and New York.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39437 posts, RR: 76 Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2348 times:
Cfalk: Gore had most of the electoral votes from the really big states, like California and New York.
As well as Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. More than 19,000 votes were thrown out in that state, some registered Democrats thown off the voter registar by a private company hired by GW's younger brother Jeb (Florida governor), ballot confusion in West Palm Beach county combined with the U.S. Supreme Court stopping the process in Florida (violation of states rights). All of that allowed GW to claim the 537 vote plurality over the candidate most voters intended to elect as there next President (Al Gore).
When schools fail our students and not accuratly teach them how the electoral process works, we end up with a large portion of the population relying on the mainstream press for information which is very biased. A press that bashed the top vote getter and painted him as some sort of sore loser when he was clearly the winner in both the popular and electoral college.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2345 times:
Oh, come off it with the conspiracy theories. I'm sure you believe the taboid stories about extraterrestrials living among us too. Every recount done for a year after the Florida vote showed GWB as the winner, albeit by a tiny lead. Gore lost, and he did not know the law. Deal with it.
In any case, that is not what this thread was about. The point was to show that the 2000 election, where the winner was not the one who won the most votes on the national level, was not a freak accident. The system was designed that way over 200 years ago. The Republican Party did not exist at the time either, so you can bury that conspiracy theory too.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39437 posts, RR: 76 Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
Convenient, very convenient for you to hide behind the point of this thread after you had included the B/S of the 2000 elections. No "conspiracy" theories coming from me. It's all FACTS weather you like it or not!
The system was designed that way over 200 years ago. The Republican Party did not exist at the time either, so you can bury that conspiracy theory too.
Cfalk you can bury your assumtions that I am going by some "conspiracry".
The Republican Party wasn't an evil party from it's inception. The Republican Party today isn't he same party it was 50 years ago.
Let me ask you this much Cfalk; Who do you think the 'majority' of voters in Florida voted for in 2000?
This thread is going off topic but Cfalk you have driven it off topic but I am going to call you out on it.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2336 times:
Who do you think the 'majority' of voters in Florida voted for in 2000?
GWB, of course. If some people were too lazy to read the instructions properly, or look at the ballot (which made sense within about 3 seconds) so that they would cast their vote properly, that's their problem, and they don't count. If you disagree with that, then by the same logic we should also try to count the votes of all the people who wanted to vote but somehow could not (in a meeting, in the hospital, banging the babysitter, whatever).
About the Republicans, I would agree, to the extent of fiscal responsibility. But I don't see the Democrats being any better. (And before you respond with the Clinton Surplus", remember that Federal tax revenues increased by 57% during his terms, and have dropped by 14% at least since he left office.) I think a President Kerry would be a far bigger disaster than Bush.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39437 posts, RR: 76 Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2332 times:
Cfalk: If some people were too lazy to read the instructions properly, or look at the ballot (which made sense within about 3 seconds) so that they would cast their vote properly, that's their problem, and they don't count. If you disagree with that, then by the same logic we should also try to count the votes of all the people who wanted to vote but somehow could not (in a meeting, in the hospital, banging the babysitter, whatever).
Oh come on man, I know your smarter than that.
I am talking about those who took the time out to excercise there right to vote granted to them by the constitution. What about those who's names were thrown off the voter registar by a private company hired by GW's baby brother Jeb (the governor)? What about the 19,000+ votes tossed out?
What was Baby Bush afraid of? Getting his a$$ kicked by his older brother for not delivering his state of Florida for him?
The whole "in a meeting, in the hospital, banging the babysitter,.." comment was something I'd expect from Jcs17 and b757300 but not from you.
I was expect a much more thought provoking post.
Be happy you live in Switzerland and not under GW's tyranny.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2329 times:
You haven't the first clue of what tyranny is. You seem to be of the type that gets upset if there's a cop on your street. If you were living under a tyranny, you certainly would not be on A-net complaining about it. I've seen tyranny. You live in California, for Christ's sake!!!
As far as the voters being removed from the roles, weren't they convicted felons? Why the hell should they have the right to vote? I thought that was part of the punishment for committing a serious crime. If they wanted to act like ordinary citizens, they should not have committed their crimes against ordinary citizens. I'm in total agreement with that policy. In any case, this was done well before the actual vote, and I doubt that Bush could have known that the Florida would have gone that close.
In any case, that is part of the Florida Constitution. Article VI, s. 4(a) No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability. Restoration of civil rights would come from recieving a pardon. You do not get them back once you leave jail.
By the way, don't you find that to be a rather biting endorsement of the Democratic Party? "We are the preferred political party for murderers, rapists, and miscellaneous scum."
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2327 times:
P.S. I just read that the Democrats managed to push through a clause in the Voting Reform Act of 2002 that automatically returns to felons the right to vote once he has completed his incarceration. If that is not padding the voter rolls, I don't know what is!