I thought I would start a thread doing my best to explain the US primary system, which has been all over the news, and will continue to be in the news with today being super Tuesday. This thread is intended to be informational, and explain a bizarre and archaic system for how candidates are chosen for the Republican and Democratic nominations for president.
Disclaimers: I am not a political scientist by trade, however, my first love was journalism, particularly surrounding politics and public policy, and I had graduated from University at a different time that would almost certainly have been my vocation. It is almost certain I will get particulars wrong, and I will do my best to cite sources and correct myself (or feel free to correct me) as I go.
As stated elsewhere, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat. I am far left of both, and a critic of our current political system. I will do my best to remain unbiased in this thread, and instead focus on the mechanics of the system. That said, I reserve the right to poke fun at the
reductio ad absurdum or the system.
Okay, so for all six of you anoraks still interested, let's give this a go.
The U.S. Primary elections are held every four years as a way of both parties choosing their nominee to run for President. In years where there is a sitting president eligible for another term (President by law are limited to two four-year terms, or ten years total in office), such as in 2004 or 2012, primaries are largely a formality as sitting presidents usually run unopposed. This year, both the Republicans and Democrats need to choose nominees for the general election in November.
Primaries as a democratic election is a relatively new concept. Until the 60s (ish), nominees were chosen during party conventions, where the leaders of the parties (important party members, elected officials from the parties such as Congressmen, Governors, etc.) would get together and choose the nominee. This has since changed to a popular vote...kind of. And this is where things start to get weird.
The elections that make up the primary are not a straight forward most votes is the winner. Instead, primaries are done one state at a time (multiple states can hold their primary on the same day, as is the case with Super Tuesday). To become the party nominee, a candidate must have the most "Delegates" who go to the party convention representing their state and put in their vote for the candidate who won them in their state. Delegates are awarded differently in each state. In some states, they are divided by percentage of the vote, so let's say California has 10 delegates that they send to the Democratic Convention. If Hillary Clinton wins 60% of the vote and Bernie Sanders wins 40%, California will send 6 delegates for Hillary Clinton, and 4 for Bernie Sanders.
In other states, Delegates are done by a "winner takes all" method. Using the California example, but instead let's say that California is a "Winner Takes All" state (which I believe it is), then if Hillary Clinton wins 51% of the vote and Bernie Sanders wins 49% of the vote, Hillary Clinton would get all 10 delegates from California.
Who can vote in the primary for which party varies from state to state. On universal is that an individual can only vote in one primary, either Democrat or Republican. How long you have to be registered as a Democrat or Republican, or if you even need to be registered as belonging to one of the parties to vote in their primary, depends on the state. California has an open election, so that I, as an independent, can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary.
Seem pretty straightforward so far? Kind of? Okay let's talk about where it gets even weirder.
Not all states hold straightforward elections for who gets their delegates. Some states instead have what are called "Caucuses." Caucuses are where members or each party get together, usually in high school gymnasiums, and votes are cast in person in the room usually by a show of hands or by writing on scraps of paper. I am not making this up. This is how Iowa holds a portion of their Caucus. From that, the candidate with the most people who could be bothered to turn up gets the delegates (in Iowa's case it's proportional).
As you've probably gathered by now, not all states vote at once. That would be too simple. Instead, Primaries/Caucuses are drawn out over a four month period. Iowa, which happened at the beginning of February, holds their primary first because of tradition. Same for New Hampshire being second on tradition. From there, it all gets a bit murky. States are constantly vying to get further ahead in the voting order to ensure their votes mean more. This famously happened when Florida held their primary early in 2008, against the Democratic party wishes, and thus their results were thrown out. States voting in a random order can create a "false economy" in terms representation. Oftentimes, if candidates do well early on in the primary, regardless of their electability, they are given a huge bump in terms of publicity and fundraising. This is evident by the fact that no candidate who won Iowa on the Republican side has gone on to become the nominee since...er, it's been at least three election cycles. As such, the emphasis of the votes of Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to vote, are often overweighted when compared to a state like California, the most populous in the union, which votes in June, some four months later.
The trend within the primaries, particularly early on, is for candidates who better speak to the "base" of the party to do better, with more moderates usually excelling as the race goes on. In the case of the Democrats, this means that further left-leaning candidates usually start strong and then fade, and with the Republicans, far right candidates are usually early frontrunners before fading away. I do not expect this to be the case in 2016, as Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump (all three would be considered fringe candidates in most years) all seem to have sustained enough support and money to be in it for the long haul.
So, aside from the weird voting practices, and the whole strange delegate thing, it's pretty simple, most delegates as voted for by the people means a candidate will be their party's nominee right? NO! Not necessarily anyway. Because, on top of the delegates voted for by the people in each state, there are also "Super Delegates." These shadowy figures, who I picture being shrouded in dark hooded cloaks and feeding on swans' blood and monkey embryos can ultimately decide who the party nominee is. Super Delegates are usually higher-ups in the party. They attend the respective conventions to cast their vote for a candidate. On the Republican side, they usually vote in line with the public vote, but on the Democratic side, all bets are off. For more, see this article, and note that Super Delegates will ensure that Hillary Clinton will ultimately be the Democratic nominee.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-the-republican-partys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-yearOnce this is all done, the two parties hold conventions where they formally announce their candidate for president. Party conventions are some of the most repulsive, vile things on earth. This is also where the Vice Presidential candidate is announced. If there is no clear winner going in to the convention, then a series of bargains and back-room dealings goes into effect. This hasn't happened for quite some time, so how this would play out would be interesting to see.
I will do my best to update this if and when I find inaccuracies or ways to better explain the process. Please ask questions you may have, and I'll do my best to answer them or direct you to places with answers.
This post is brought to you by insomnia, Mogwai, and My Bloody Valentine.
Comments
And following on from that, Trump as U.S President and Putin to remain in charge of Russia..........We've reached the Utopian planet earth we've always dreamed of
Thanks for that.
Very hard to follow. No wonder the imperialist arm of American foreign policy struggles to democratise the parts of the world it interferes with.
In China, where people vote too, they vote for which communist party person they prefer at local and broader level. Not great, but not a million miles from the confusing American system.
So called democracy has many versions and interpretations.
Trump with the nuclear codes is very scary.
I will admit to still being confused but less so than prior to your posting.
Do all voting Americans understand the system?
* Been a while since I studied US politics so apologises if this has been tightened up since my school days.
It will almost certainly be Trump v Clinton and it won't be because of super delegates in either case. Both will win 10 or 11 states out of 13 today.
You get a "like" for your helpful explanation. The US voting system has always been a complete mystery to me. Not, of course, in any way is the "like" indicting any sort of approbation for the system itself. Or, indeed any understanding of why the American people continue to put up with such an archaic process.
The USA is a land full of contradictions. On the one hand, you have the official state motto of New Hampshire - "Live Free or Die" which most Americans (I guess) would automatically say is a view they subscribe to. (So you get weird stuff like New Hampshire and a few other States not having a sales tax.)
But on the other there is the complete contrast of the appalling and onerous levels of unfathomable bureaucracy in America today. Tax forms and almost all other governmental processes, whether at the Federal or State level are mired in horrendous complexity and language that is unintelligible.
Why do Americans put up with this state of affairs?
I do have a question. Probably answered in your post but I'm too dim to see it. Does each state have a set number of "delegates" and is it a case of whoever has the most out of all states becomes the party's candidate?
This has nothing to do with the constitution, originally the Vice President was runner up in the presidential election. The change in '68 which brought more states into the primaries came about after the Democrats nearly splintered trying to choose a candidate. And even that was an anomaly, because the man who many believe would have been their nominee, Robert Kennedy, was killed a couple months before the convention.
The above highlights the strangeness of this process. It's a combination of tradition and changing that tradition when something goes wrong. After Romney's nomination in 2012, the Republicans changed how they handle Super Delegates. So it's like tradition*, in that it's handled in a traditional sense, until something goes wrong and you elect a terrible nominee, and then a change is made to the tradition that would have worked in that particular year (e.g. 2012), but may not make sense ever again.
As for whether Americans understand this, the answer is eh. The thing is, there is usually a clear winner relatively early on, so it's very rare that it goes all the way through all the states with all votes still mattering. This year may very well be different for both parties. I could make a decent case for any three of the Republican front runners being the nominee, and while I struggle to see Sanders overcoming Clinton, he could keep her from getting enough delegates prior to the convention.
As far as our election system being broken, you are so much more correct than you know. That said, this is a very tiny example of that. It's really more of a redheaded stepchild of American politics and political parties. We could spend weeks on how broken our democracy is, starting with the influence of unlimited money that is allowed to be given to individual campaigns and parties, and the influence that money has. Because this happens once every four years, and only matters once every 12-16ish years, it's often forgotten about as soon as it's over.
Again, hoping to try to clear things up. Please keep the question coming and I'll do my best.
@ShootersHillGuru A great question, and voter fraud is a hot button issue right now given a lot of states are starting to require various forms of identification in what I would argue is an attempt to make voting harder for certain groups. The answer is that, in order to vote, you have to be registered, which required your full name and social security number. These are then crosschecked in the aftermath of the election to ensure you only voted once. Instances of voter fraud are incredibly rare.
Edit: Wiki to the rescue - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
I should add that because of the wide array of political stances in this election, I suspect we're going to see a "re-alignment" of the parties before too long. For the Republicans, this has been a long time coming after bad defeats in 2008 and 2012.
On the potential Veeps, for Trump I would normally say an establishment Republican, but it's one where who knows. I could actually see it being Ted Cruz, basically sticking two fingers up at moderates and doubling down for the evangelical Christian vote.
For Clinton, early days, but Cory Booker would make a lot of sense, particularly as a way to placate the more liberal wing of the party. That said, it could also very well be someone from a swing state.
Were Sanders to somehow win the nomination, he should beg and plead with Elizabeth Warren to run with him.
Are there many Americans who gawp in shocked disbelief when they contemplate Trump as I do?
On the news they have found a lot of people who are backing him in a kind of 'I'm for Boris' way with no idea about what he will do.
To make matters worse Clinton seems both dull and tainted.
It is far from inconceivable to me that if elected, Trump might want to launch a teensy weensy nuclear strike on somebody to make a point.
Nutcase Megalomaniac Putin responds, and the planet can kiss it's arse goodbye.
This US Election is a test of that growing problem in the world, the rise of anti politics, here in the form of Trump, less honest but more credible than Palin.
This is a good simple editorial from the NY Times putting the pro politics case.
nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/the-governing-cancer-of-our-time.html
I am probably in denial thinking that Trump can't possibly win but then I thought the Tories wouldn't win. Heaven help us if our Trump in sheep's clothing, Boris Johnson gets his way with Brexit.