How does the system work?

in a caucus system, voters represent not themselves, but groups of people. So, actually, very few people vote in a caucus. And, that voting that occurs is by show of hands in public. The primary voting process is just like in the general election.

What Pettyfog was talking about is the difference between primaries. He was talking about Open primaries where individuals do not have to claim a party preference in order to vote. In closed [or partisan] primaries, a voter has to declare himself for one party or another. This means that if there are runoffs, you can only vote for candidates of the party you originally voted for.

In the US, of course, you don't vote for the party, and, in most states, you don't vote for a slate of cadidates created by the party.

At one time, caucuses and primaries accounted for a relatively small percentage of committed delegates to national conventions, and candidates were ultimately selected after much horsetrading by party bigwigs in "smoke filled rooms." I can't tell you exactly when was our last "brokered" convention, but it had to have occurred before 1960. Conventions really are interesting these days only because of debates over campaign platform "planks" and guessing over who the VP candidate will be.

Oh, and on that, only once in my memory has anyone at a convention voted for the VP candidate. Usually it is solely the decision of the presidential candidate. That exception, by the way, was in 1956 when the Democrat's Adelai Stevenson let the conventioneers vote. A hurridly, but very effectively organized mini-campaign developed overnight for a junior senator from Massachusetts. Although Stevenson lost to Eisenhower in 1956, the effectiveness of that ad hoc organization and the telegenetic qualities of the VP nominee did much to make him the Demo frontrunner -- and eventual winner -- in 1960, JFK.

Thanks for being interested, and try to ignore the comments of young Americans like timmyg. It's all part of the "none of this matters, everything's all settled, why should I bother" thing that young folks have. Doesn't mean they ain't nice people.

 

Each state does have a different number of delegates sent to the parties' convention. The most populous states have the most. Although some states had their delegates taken away from them (by the party, see FL for the Dems) for moving the election earlier than normal.

I think most people see the primaries as transparent, but not necessarily the best candidate is always chosen in my view. I believe in recent years only the most die hard believers of the party vote in the primaries. The other voters tend to stay home because they don't feel bothered (mostly moderates) or they are not allowed in most states to vote in the party's primary (registered independents). Independent voters tend to skew to middle of the road in their political preference, so what happens is the candidate that plays to the base of their party for the nomination usually does not flip the skirts of the moderates or independents. See the general elections of Gore vs. Bush and Bush vs. Kerry, where quite a number of people were themselves which one of two were the lesser evil.

I think the press tends to cover the democrats more closely because most of our media are registered dems and the foreign media usually takes it cue from our media. And there seems to be the added bonus of there being a very strong possiblity of a female or a black man as president...something very historical for our country, so it's going to get more coverage no matter what. Sure there's been a female and a black candidate before, but they never really had a chance of winning...not so this time.

 

The primaries can cause a rift in working relationships, but nothing too major. McCain still came out to support Bush after winning the party's nomination in 2000, even though some personal, negative push polling was used in the SC primary. But McCain was not picked as the VP.

It could be possible one of the two could nominate the other for the VP slot. But the way the two camps have been acting towards each other it's not very likely.

 

One other addition to what the Senator has been telling you, and it's one that a lot of Brits don't fully understand.

1. Most Americans don't belong to a political party, but to actually belong to one, all that's necessary to say is "I'm a Republican." You can vote the straight Republican ticket for 40 years, call yourself an idependent, and that's what you are.

2. There is no full-time national republican or democratic party. There are, instead, 51 of them. That's why there are differing types of primaries and primary dates. The national party has really very little control over the state parties. The ONLY thing they really can do to punish a state for holding a primary too early [as Michigan and Florida did] is to invalidate the state elections as a means for selecting delegates. That's not only their H-bomb, it's also their pop-gun. There's no other punishment available.

As to will #1 pick #2, that has happened [Kennedy Johnson in '50 and Reagan Bush in 80], but usually it's somebody with a different job from a different region. One thing Pettyfog and I may actually agree upon is that the VP from either party will probably come from someone who has already or is about to drop out. If Clinton wins, look for somebody like Bill Richardson the hispanic governor of New Mexico. If Mitt Romney wins, look for someone from the west who has some legislative experience. Kennedy picked Johnson in '60, for example, because he knew that a New Englander would probably lose some if not all of "the Solid South" without a Southerner on the ticket.

The VP is pretty much traditionally paid unemployment -- Dick Cheney has been by far the most functioning and powerful VP in history. Usually, even highly competent VPs -- Lyndon Johnson, George HW Bush, Teddy Roosevelt -- were given nothing meaningful to do. The old joke goes that the VP's only official duty is to ask about the president's health.

 

wow; Newt continues to be a weirdo.

The BBC obviously believes that the Democrats will walk through because of the very low opinion ratings for George W. Bush. Actually, this means very little unless there's a sitting president facing re-election. In 1960 Eisenhower's approval ratings were sky high, but his VP lost to Kennedy. Similarly, Clinton's personal popularity was very high in 2000, but Bush still beat HIS VP.

There's a lot more unanimity within the party structure in the UK than there is in the United States. The official head of the party is the head of the national committee. Loyalty to the head of the RNC or DNC won't get you anywhere, because that post is usually filled by someone not directly involved in government. Similarly, while the president is usually considered to be the leader of his party, once he's been elected for his second term, his wishes or desires as to succession or on-going policy doesn't make any difference.

while in British politics, there's usually a long, coherent step up the parliamentary ladder to prominence, and most leaders have been deputy leaders or holders of significant government posts, in the US our last two presidents hadn't served a day of service in Washington DC at all. And, finally, we have no "shadow government" in our system, so there is no "leader of the opposition" for the voting populace to react to. In England, if the leader of government has rock-bottom approval ratings, at least part of that is due to how poor he looks as compared to his opposite number. Here, there is no opposite number.

Best thing about your system? By the time someone has achieved a leadership position, he's had plenty of legislative experience mixed in with a lot of executive experience in one or more ministries. Best thing about our system? We get to vote for people and not parties, and our representatives can [and do] cross party lines without fear of being "banished to the back benches."