Election process

[xke4]

Okay. I'm going out to clean out the duck coop. When I come back, I want to read an answer to MY question. Obama discussions shoud be sent to another thread. This is just a GENERAL (typing with very hard strokes) civics question. I know I should have paid more attention in Grade 11. My bad. But I am willing to learn now ......

 

[bamagirl68]

It was not my intent at all!!! I did look up some info and found a picture of Obama with hands folded while other candidates had theirs over their hearts. It was a congressman who used the Quran not Obama. Some of the statements are true and some were not. Truly, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers! I honestly wasn't trying to stir any hatred in any one. Sorry I posted.

 

[Lunachick]

The election process confuses me too.

 

[pipermark]

Could someone please explain to me how your election process works?

I am sorry I didn't answer your question on my previous post.

S(implified)
There are 2 parts to our electoral process.

1. Primaries - The goal of this is to become the candidate of your party for the main election. In the primaries you can only cast your vote within your party lines. In other words Democrats vote for Democrats , etc. The reason they want their parties support, is money. The final process of the primaries happens as the Democrat and Republican convention, at the end of which their will be only one Democratic and one Republican presidential candidate.

2. Main election , one Republican , one Democrat, and as many Independents that can afford to run. (I forgot to mention to get on a ballet in some states you have to prove by petition that there are enough voters interested in you to make it worth the effort)
The main election is actually won by the candidate that wins the most electoral votes. The electoral votes are determined basically by population and each state is allowed so many.
This means that even though the majority of people in the country would prefer candidate A, candidate B can still win. Here is another twist many people don't know about. The electoral votes are cast by a person chosen by the winning party, they are suppose to cast their vote according to the winner of the popular vote in their state, however they are under no legal obligation to do so, and in fact , it did happen one time in our history when an electorant voted for the losing candidate as a protest (this did not effect the outcome of the final count however)

I hope this helps.​

 

[MiniDriver]

Quote:
Ok, I think the issue was this:

Michigan and Florida went against Democratic National Committee rules by moving their primary up ahead of "Super Tuesday" Feb 5. So the DNC stripped them of their delegates. There was no real point in Democratic candidates making appearances, advertising, or putting their names on the ballot in these states. Hillary's win earns her nothing delegate-wise.

I think it would be better if we had a national primary day, rather than favoring some states over others in the early races.

 

[MiniDriver]

Quote:
You can also google pictures of the current President with his hands over his crotch while others have their hands over their hearts.

My point is you can google almost any ridiculous thing, and what you find doesn't necessarily prove anything about the subject.

 

[tpantali]

Obama and others withdrew from the Michigan primaries in a form of protest or boycott, if you will, for the state not abiding by Democratic National Committee's forbidding states from holding primaries prior to the designated "early" four states holding primaries. Those states are Iowa, New Hampshire, Neveda and S. Carolina.

There are several news sources on the web that reported on this matter. You may also find information at Obama's website.

 

[Rosalind]

To answer your other questions:

A caucus is where each party elects delegates (one delegate per county). The way each party elects its delegates is determined by party officials, so Republicans cast secret ballots or have a show of hands and Democrats have discussion areas where they crowd around the candidate's information tables, and other parties do whatever it is they do. The delegates then are expected to vote for the candidates in proportion to how many votes the candidate got in their county, but a super-delegate (a party official elected to an administrative sort of position by other party members) can vote as they please in the primary. This is slightly less insane than it sounds, here's an example:

There are 99 counties, thus 99 delegates/party. On the Republican ballot are Joe Schmoe, Mary Smith and John Q. Public. On the Democrat ballot are Bob Johnson, Amy Peters and Jeff E. Veryman. The final results are:

In counties 1-55, the majority of the Republican votes are for Mary Smith.
In counties 56-89, the majority of the Republican votes are for Joe Schmoe.
The remaining 9 counties have majority Republican votes for John Q. Public.

In counties 1-40, the majority of the Democrat votes are for Bob Johnson.
In counties 41-80, the majority of the Democrat votes are for Amy Peters.
The remaining 19 counties have majority Democrat votes for Jeff E. Veryman.

Therefore, the Republican winner of the state caucus is Mary Smith and the Democrat winner is Bob Johnson. The Democrat delegates from that state will vote according to the majority vote in their county. However, when the final vote is taken, let's say two super-delegates who have been working hard, fetching all the coffee for everyone in the office or whatever it is super-delegates do, those super-delegates decide that they doesn't like Bob Johnson and Amy Peters would make a better president, so they vote for Amy Peters. That means that even though a majority of regular folks voted for Bob Johnson, the two super-delegates make sure that Amy Peters gets the official nomination, because it's such a close race that those two people make all the difference.

It will make more sense as soon as you realize that we really do not have a democracy at all--we have a Republic, which is quite different.

 

[xke4]

Thanks! Good information. Did Obama electively remove himself from the ballot? If so, would that not irritate ( and thereby potential voters) the ones that would have supported him in Michigan? Wouldn't they feel that their voice didn't matter to him? That doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.

Another question.... I listen to Rush Limbaugh in my truck ( because Canadian talk radio is dull and painful to listen to) and as I live near Detroit, I can pick it up clearly. It's either him or listen to the different methods of saving Amaryllis bulbs or some very poorly acted radio play. If there are any Rush listeners out there.... who the heck is he supporting? Just yesterday, in the brief period that I was in my truck, he seemed to be slamming McCain and Huckabee rather vociferously. Has he crossed over to the other side?

Thank you for tolerating me and my questions. There are few here in my village that know what the heck is going on past the price of hay. Carolyn

 

[pipermark]

He maybe on vicodian again.

Acutally it depends more on the topic,, he is a form of shock radio, and if he wasn't slamming someone his ratings would drop.