American 2008 Election

[Boggy1 45]

Wow, so, Edwards has quit, and Giuliani is going to quit. Looks like Florida is a serious campaign state. Again, this is totally alien to me. If a candidate quit for election, then there would be chaos. You simply don't have Prime Ministerial candidates dropping out of the race. They would probably call of the election. Of course, also the fact that we only have one Prime Ministerial candidate per political party (so generally there are only three candidates running). The fact that there are a number of democrats and a number of republican candidates really jarres me, especially as they are running against their fellow party candidates. Bizzare, totally bizzare.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Wow, so, Edwards has quit, and Giuliani is going to quit. Looks like Florida is a serious campaign state. Again, this is totally alien to me. If a candidate quit for election, then there would be chaos. You simply don't have Prime Ministerial candidates dropping out of the race. They would probably call of the election. Of course, also the fact that we only have one Prime Ministerial candidate per political party (so generally there are only three candidates running). The fact that there are a number of democrats and a number of republican candidates really jarres me, especially as they are running against their fellow party candidates. Bizzare, totally bizzare.quote>

Its called process of elimination...and that is exactly what the primaries are about. The Democratic and Republican parties have to narrow it down so that they can choose which candidate they want to represent their party. In the end there will be only 1 candidate for both parties, but that time has not yet come.

[Boggy1 45]

Oh really? I never knew that, thanks for correcting me. I was under the impression that all the candidates (who were left) stood for presidency. I always assumed there were a load more candidates that weren't reported about in the John Kerry/George Bush race. Then again, I have only lived through three elections, two of which I didn't take notice of, so please excuse my ignorance.

[toxicpiano 125]

I really don't understand why you don't just have a popular vote for the presidential candidate for each party and then a popular vote for the president, I guarantee it would save you months of being bombarded with election campaigns.

[SILVERQUEST 0]

Hello Everyone,

First time poster to this Forum. After reading all of the postings I must say I find them very interesting and informative. There are a lot of good opinions being made by some very knowledgeable people.

I believe that it will be a McCain vs Clinton Election. I do not think that Obama has enough experience to become President. Plus he is endorsed by Ted Kennedy and I for one don't care for Ted.

Hillary on the other hand, I don't think is that great either. Plus she has Bill behind her and I am not a fan of his either.

I just don't think the Country is ready for a Black President but they might go for a Women. 

As for McCain he has experience but I don't see the Republicans winning this Election.

Next weeks Super Tuesday should shed a little more light on this subject. 

And for N_O_Body.... Very Funny Joke. Kind of reminds me of the truth. LOL. 

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Oh really? I never knew that, thanks for correcting me. I was under the impression that all the candidates (who were left) stood for presidency. I always assumed there were a load more candidates that weren't reported about in the John Kerry/George Bush race. Then again, I have only lived through three elections, two of which I didn't take notice of, so please excuse my ignorance.quote>

Well, the party can't force someone to stop running, so even if you don't win the nomination, you can still run.  Thing is, that doesn't help your party, and they'll ostracize you for it later on.  So, generally, when someone gets the nomination, that's the only person from the party that will be running anymore.

Originally posted by: toxicpiano I really don't understand why you don't just have a popular vote for the presidential candidate for each party and then a popular vote for the president, I guarantee it would save you months of being bombarded with election campaigns.quote>

No it wouldn't.   Since lots of people run for office, the parties want time to whittle down the pool till they can pick the candidate that stands the best chance of winning.  Whether or not we have a popular vote has absolutely nothing to do with that.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Thing are just different in America.

Let me try and explain for my fellow Brits.

The President is like the Queen, she/he is the head of state and will be linked to a party, but that party leadership does not last forever. Unlike in the UK where men/women can lead their respective parties for decades if they and the party so wished. American elections are more about personality politics than party politics. While the democrats share some policies all candidates have their own ideas and combined with personality its what people will vote for.

That's a very simplistic view of everything, but kinda explains the American process. Anyway, I love American elections, always so much more exciting than British elections...

[krbe 193]

toxicpiano In Europe, the leaders of the respective parties are (usually) the parties PM candidates; and there is often stiff competition amongst them when a new leader is to be elected. The difference is that this is done only by members attending the the conventions. It is actually the same process in the US, only that you might vote for some of the delegates (which is done in different ways). It is a little different from state to state; usually party members vote in their party's primary election, but sometimes people not registered with either party might vote in one of the primaries. (like they did in New Hampshire).

So it's not that different, only that it isn't a party leader that becomes the candidate, and that some delegates are chosen by the common member (this is due to the political tradition in the US).

[hym 358]

belfastuniguy: Is the Queen just ceremonial or does she have leadership responsibilities? I ask because the President does actually have certain legal powers that aren't just there for ceremonial purposes.

[krbe 193]

From Wikipedia:

In theory her powers are vast; in practice (and in accordance with convention) she herself never intervenes in political matters. In the United Kingdom at least, however, she is known to take an active behind-the-scenes interest in the affairs of state, meeting regularly to establish a working relationship with her government ministers.

End of quote

Kings and queens are counted as heads of state; however, in constitutional monarchies they hold a ceremonial role. Most of them have vast powers in theory; they have to sign the laws passed, they are commanders-in-chief, they appoint the ministers (in theory, we don't need elections) and so on. But modern monarchs hold little power, as tradition tells them to follow the will of the people (i.e. the parliament).

In theory though, they could act as the sane response to an insane population. What if we were to elect a new Hitler? In a constitutional monarchy, the king control the army as the general  and not the PM (even though wars are political decisions, much the same way we pass laws).

And the Queen actually holds 16 crowns; like Queen Elizabeth II of Canada.

Oh yeah, and they're all in familiy, see the line of succession for the British throne. It's an impressive list. If a miracle happened, wee could see the UK, the Netherlands and Norway, Denmark and Sweden in a union, and possibly also Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg if they denounce their Catholic faith.

[Meg 368]

As I understand it, over across the pond, you aren't electing a person as PM, you are electing a party.  (Did I get that right?)

Here, we are electing an individual. 

[belfastuniguy 18]

That's exactly right SkiGeek

belfastuniguy: Is the Queen just ceremonial or does she have leadership responsibilities? I ask because the President does actually have certain legal powers that aren't just there for ceremonial purposes.quote>

I was just using the Queen as an example of another head of state. She does have leadership responsibility. As a constitutional monarch she respects the will of the British people by means of respecting their elected leaders. She does have powers, in the 1970's I believe she had to step in and appoint a Prime Minister as the parties could not agree. She signs laws, head of all the armed forces. As Kbre stated Queen Elizabeth a very active behind the scenes role in British Government. She is the British head of state and a symbol of stability for the United Kingdom in addition to other nations.

In effect as someone stated if we elected another Hitler (highly unlikely as the British have never had a penchant for extreme nationalist parties) she could remove him from power and force a new leadership election or indeed general election.

[Boggy1 45]

SkiGeek: Correct, which is another reason I find it so odd that members within a single party have different political ideas. In essance, a candidate is elected in a (relatively) closed election by the Party Members. He then represents the views and idologies of that party. If he then goes onto become Prime Minister, he will present his party's views and idologies to the House of Commons who then debate/discuss/ratify/hold/pass onto the House of Lords/etcetera different bills and whatnot. This is also why we only ever have up to three main Prime Ministerial candidates, one from each party.

Thats not saying there can't be disagreements. In the 19th century, the Wigs Party decided to self-destruct in internal conflict, and the Labour Party was born, and the Wigs Party turned into the Liberal Democrats. Labour too, has split a few times, with party members going off to join the Liberal Democrats or form the New Labour party. (The original Old Labour party now generally represents the older, more left-wing party members, as New Labour and Old Labour have become basically synonymous with just "Labour")

Generally however, there arn't that many conflics within parties.

A quote that sums up British politics quite neatly is Politicians are there to represent the general public in Parliment. They are not there to represent themselves. Unfortunately, there is now a greater emphysis on charisma and leadership qualities in a potential Party Leader or Prime Minister or Member of Parliment, which is a shame.

EDIT: Something that always suprises Americans I think is when they find out that citizens of the United Kingdom are not actual citizens, but subjects under the Royal Family. The Queen technically has the ability to superceed Parliment and the democratic process, to take all land in the United Kingdom as her own, to start wars, to change policies, to do whatever. A less-extreme example of this is the tradition that a newly elected Prime Minister must go to the Royal Palace and ask the Queen their permission to become Prime Minister. It would be interesting to see what would happen if she refused. You see, its all very well us democratically electing a leader, but if the Queen doesn't like him, she can superceed the vote and simply not allow him to step foot into Number 11 Downing Street.

[patriots_1228 51]

wow.

it has become romney v. mccain and clinton v. obama.

I really don't have any favorite here, although im kinda pulling for romney (like i said, if he can save the big dig, he could save america, right? ).

Mccain would be good with the situation in iraq,

romney with the economy,

and obama, well, idk much about him yet, but im not against him at the moment.

clinton i can't stand. we will see a female president probably over the next 5 elections, but it will not be her. Of course, I don't know much bout any of the candidates yet, except for a few things ive come across while working on a social studies project.

[Zelgadis 638]

Another curious difference I've noticed (at least in Canada) is that political parties here have a lot more power to boot somebody out. This is nigh impossible in the US. I could run as a Republican for congress in the US right now and win and spend every day in the capitol badmouthing Republicans and voting for Democratic things. And the Republicans still couldn't kick me out.

In Canada, if your party leader says you have to vote for a law, you have to do it or face the consequences. Not so in the US.

In the US, there's no such thing as a "backbencher." Took me 6 months to figure out what that was...

I'm learning lots of new stuff here.

ISF

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

Something that always suprises Americans I think is when they find out that citizens of the United Kingdom are not actual citizens, but subjects under the Royal Family. quote>

and that says a lot about the different approaches to government.  Call an American a "subject" and you will not get a warm response.

You see, its all very well us democratically electing a leader, but if the Queen doesn't like him, she can superceed the vote and simply not allow him to step foot into Number 11 Downing Street.quote>

now, that I didn't know.

Originally posted by: zelgadis

In the US, there's no such thing as a "backbencher." Took me 6 months to figure out what that was... quote>

for those of us who haven't spent 6 months trying to figure it out, can you share what it is?

[belfastuniguy 18]

A backbencher is a member of a Parliament that does not have an active government role.

A backbencher is a Member of Parliament (MP) or a legislator who does not hold governmental office and is not a Front Bench spokesperson in the Opposition. A backbencher may be a new parliamentary member yet to receive high office, a senior figure dropped from government, or someone who for whatever reason is not chosen to sit either in the ministry or the opposition Shadow Ministry.

In most parliamentary systems, backbenchers individually do not have much power to influence government policy. However, they are important in providing services to their constituents and in relaying the opinions of their constituents. In addition, since backbenchers generally form the vast majority of the number of MPs, collectively they can sometimes exercise considerable power especially in cases where the policies of the government are unpopular or when a governing party is internally split.quote>

You see, its all very well us democratically electing a leader, but if the Queen doesn't like him, she can superceed the vote and simply not allow him to step foot into Number 11 Downing Street.quote>

That's exactly why we would never have someone like Hitler running the United Kingdom.

[Meg 368]

okay, I got stuck here:

A backbencher is a Member of Parliament (MP) or a legislator who does not hold governmental office quote>

   quote>

[belfastuniguy 18]

No, in the UK and I think many other countries.

People are elected to a parliament and they represent their local constituency (state) they can be selected by the leader of the winning party and placed into government. In the UK its called the Cabinet. Parliament here is just a forum where the people of the UK can have their views represented by their elected official. They all vote on laws and has such have the power to defeat any law proposed by a government.

[krbe 193]

Since the PM and his government usually are appointed by the monarch, it may be used as pressure against the blocks so that they will cooperate.

In 1928 the Norwegian king appointed the Labour leader PM since the other parties couldn't find out how to cooperate (none of the several blocks had a majority). In 1928, Labour was aligned with Moscow (i.e. communist), and naturally the other parties quickly formed a common block and voted the communist PM out of office.

Last year in Denmark, the newly formed New Alliance tried to break the ruling block composed by Left (the Liberals), the Conservatives, and the Danish Popular Party (populist, very hard on immigrants) by insisting on the queens opinion on the government foundation if they were to get the decisive votes in Parliament (they didn't).

Too bad the Belgiums were discussing nations and not politics; or the king might have been able to press the parties to get together earlier.

And remember the deadwater Europe occasionally enters, because of the many parties. It's very hard for any party to get over 20%, not to mention seeing the 30%-mark. That being said, it's believed that minority governments and the collaboration across party lines that are necessary, are beneficial to the economy.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

People are elected to a parliament and they represent their local constituency (state) . . .quote>

okay so far.  Same thing as electing a Senator or a Congressional representative.

. . . they can be selected by the leader of the winning party and placed into government. quote>

They "can be" selected and placed into government?   which means it's possible that they "won't be" selected and placed to into government?

Are you saying that some elected officials can be told "never mind; we don't want you; go sit in the back of the room"? 

In the UK its called the Cabinet. quote>

What is called the Cabinet?  The elected officials who were told go buzz off? 

I'm not trying to be rude here; I'm just trying to understand.

Parliament here is just a forum where the people of the UK can have their views represented by their elected official. They all vote on laws and has such have the power to defeat any law proposed by a government. quote>

Again, just like Congress.

[Boggy1 45]

I'll just add to the confusion here by saying that Parliment is split into two; The House of Commons and The House of Lords. They are both totally seperate and deal with different things. The House of Commons refers to the "Commoners" (a place where issues of the poor can be discussed). The House of Lords is where Members of Parliments who get a "Lord" title go to debate stuff. In fact, the Prime Minister has very little presence in the House of Lord. In some issues, The House of Lord has the final say if a policy goes ahead or not, or push back new laws to the House of Commons so that they can be reviwed again with suggestions.

Also, Wales and Scotland both have their own Parliements. Wales has both Members of Parliments and Members of [Welsh] Assembely, and many people hold both of these titles. Actually its a darn complicated system when you get down to the nuances.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The entire United Kingdom elects 646 Members of Parliament (MP's) every five years, what we call the House of Commons. We also have the House of Lords, but that just complicates things.

The largest party is called upon to form a government. The leader of that party is made Prime Minister. He/she then selects people from their party to form a Cabinet

In the politics of the United Kingdom, the Cabinet is a formal body composed of the most senior government ministers chosen by the Prime Minister. Most members are heads of government departments with the title "Secretary of State". Formal members of the Cabinet are drawn exclusively from the House of Commons and the House of Lords.quote>

Peope stand for election to represent their constituency and their party. They do not expect to get a government role. They aren't elected officials, just representatives. Kinda like American Congress Members being picked to be in charge of Education or health or defence., that kinda how it works here.....

It's all very long and complicated to detail fully...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom#Relationship_with_Parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_%28UK%29

Edit - @ Boggy, Northern Ireland also has an elected assembly

EDIT - This is my 1000th Post

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

You see, its all very well us democratically electing a leader, but if the Queen doesn't like him, she can superceed the vote and simply not allow him to step foot into Number 11 Downing Street.quote>

That's exactly why we would never have someone like Hitler running the United Kingdom.

quote>

 

or bush...

[Rymac91 15]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy A backbencher is a member of a Parliament that does not have an active government role.

You see, its all very well us democratically electing a leader, but if the Queen doesn't like him, she can superceed the vote and simply not allow him to step foot into Number 11 Downing Street.quote>

That's exactly why we would never have someone like Hitler running the United Kingdom.

quote>

I don't think anyone would like a dead political leader running their country.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

I'm not trying to be rude here; I'm just trying to understand.

quote>

Yeah, but don't get him started on the Lord Privy Seal and the likes. If you're trying to understand European politics, I think the UK is one of the worst places to start, with all their traditions, who's in the cabinet and who's in the privy and so on.

[belfastuniguy 18]

@ Krbe, LOL exactly....

[hummer0328 6]

Giuliani has just quit his run for president.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

One of the best tangents of a thread I've ever seen. My appreciation to our Euro members for educating the rest of us (myself included) on some of the basic points of Parliamentary government. This is not something that gets taught in American schools.

[krbe 193]

It certainly easier to teach American politics in Europe than vice versa. But don't American school teaches politics and society in language classes? (I've learnt about the US and UK systems in English, the systems of Germany, Austria and Switzerland in German, and the new Baltic ones plus Russia in Economics)