A few questions about American politics?

I'll make a start, and probably miss a couple, but hey, I'm up late.

Yes, popular vote is just what it sounds like. Electoral votes are based on congressional representation, which in turn is based on population. Every state has two senators. Every state has at least one representative - more if their population merits it. This is based on population by census every ten years. On the electoral college itself, I'm in danger of giving bad information. You're on your own. EDIT - it follows that every state gets at least three electoral votes, right?

Our senators are also supposed to be the sober second thought. That's also theory, but explains why senators have 6 year terms. Their jobs are not at the whim of the voters. It's also a more stable body as only one third of the senators are up for election every two years. The entire lower house is elected every two years. One important distinction is that revenue bills must originate in the lower house, before being voted on by the senate. The senate votes (advise and consent) on presidental appointments. There is no filabuster in the lower house, and yes, it's gotten to the point that filibusters are pretty much down to a phone call - as long as the particular senator's party has the strength to opppose closure. Sixty percent is what it comes to now, and I don't believe either party has that kind of majority.

Exit polls are not mandatory. Hey, our votes are a secret. I've never been asked to participate, but I voted for the Mormon guy. I'm sure they're done in person at the polls.

We're not required to either register or to vote. Eighteen is the age. You may, but are not required to state a party. In most states, you must vote only for your own party's ballot in the primary. You can vote however you wish in the general election. You can switch parties practically at will, though there may be some restriction based on how far away the election is.

Newspapers break out the results in whatever detail they desire. The Mormon Guy lost, and I'm not paying attention to the bloody details.

I don't know why the voting process takes so long in some places and not others. Certainly, some areas have many more absentee ballots to contend with, and Florida is spring loaded to the screwed up position. The other; I just don't know.

Anything I didn't answer, I've either forgot, or plain don't know.

The Electoral College and the Senate were two compromises at the constitutional convention meant to assure the small states (i.e., small in population) that they wouldn't be overwhelmed by the large states. To dispense with the senate right away, because it's fairly simple: each state has two senators, and originally, they were chosen however a state wished to choose them, in the beginning that was by appointment. The failing of the Continental Congress had been equal representation among the states. Large states thought they should have proportional representation--small states didn't want to play along with that. So, the compromise is that the House has sole right to originate money bills, and the Senate has control of sovereignty. The Senate can propose money bills, and the House is free to ignore them. The Senate alone ratifies treaties (has to be by a two thirds vote) at a time when treaties were crucially important (they aren't so important now). The Seante also, alone, consents to the appointment of executive branch officers. Basically the President chooses his officers, but he is required to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. He usually doesn't ask for their advice, but he does have to get their consent (simple majority). The choice of executive officers in governments was also of crucial significance in the late 18th century, and that has not changed. So, the Senate was a compromise to reassure the small population states in a federal system that they would not be marginalized by the merely heavily populated states.

The Electoral College also reassures, or is meant to, the small states. But things get a little confused there. At the time of the adoption of our constitution, there were no political parties at all, as we think of them. In many of our early elections, there were six, seven or eight candidates, often with two or three or more from the same party. Electors were chose by the state legislatures, and then, ostensibly would vote for the candidate who had won the district they represented, with, it was assumed, the two electors representing the senators voting as the legislature decided (whatever the theory, that was the practice).

A lot of problems cropped up, though. Electors sometimes voted as they pleased rather than in response to the popular votes or the wishes of the legislature. Additionally, if two candidates tied in the Electoral College, the election would be thrown into the House if Representatives, and that could cause problems. So, for example, in 1824, both Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams got the same number of Electoral votes. No big deal, they were both from the same party, and Adams was supposed to have been the Vice President. But lame duck members of the House, Federalists, to spite the Republicans (no relation to the modern Republicans, Thomas Jefferson had founded the Democratic Republican Party, who were usually just called the Republicans), voted for Adams rather than Jackson, so Adams became the President. Thereafter, Jackson founded the Democratic Party, from the wreck of the Democratic Republicans and with dissatisfied men who didn't feel that they were represented by either the Republicans or the Federalists. His party was organized like a military hierarchy, and he imposed a military discipline on it. He won the 1828 election.

Different parties have come and gone. In 1860, there were four candidates--the Republicans (the party which exists today), the Democrats, other Democrats and the Whigs. That was the last hurrah of the Whigs. Because the Democrats split their ticket, the Republicans won, and Abraham Lincoln became president. The Democrats were by no means out of power, though, they still were the oldest and most well organized party. The new Republican Party was organized along the same lines as the Democrats, and party discipline was imposed as it hadn't been in the past.

After the American Civil War, the two parties took steps to consolidate their power, and to exclude other political parties. That showed up in two ways, both the product of the two parties controlling state legislatures. One was the passage of laws to control how Electors voted. Both parties could agree on one thing, at least, and that was that they didn't want a third or fourth party, so the states instituted a winner take all policy for Electoral votes. The other measure was the primary system, and for a long time, voter registration by party affiliation. Those measure also effectively excluded third or fourth parties.

It's the winner take all aspect which makes the Electoral College somewhat pernicious. (I say somewhat, because i believe the Electoral College is a good institution, in need of slight reform.) But the power of the EC, especially from the point of view of small states, can be seen in this latest election. Romney took South Carolina, and under the winner take all system, all of its votes. South Carolina has seven Representatives and two Senators, for a total of nine. Obama took Connecticut, and under the same system, all of its EC votes. Connecticut has five Representative and two Senators, for a total of seven EC votes. Well, Connecticut has 70% of the number of Representatives as South Carolina, but thanks to the EC, it has 77% of its electoral votes.

Much is made of the emphasis on "swing states." That's late in the campaign, though. The Electoral College assures that all states (well, almost all) get some attention from the candidates, although the focus is increasingly on swing states as the campaign nears its end. There have been thirteen or fourteen minority presidents--presidents who lost the popular vote, but won in the Electoral College. Although the pattern is not equal by any means, no candidate can afford to ignore smaller states. An election can be won with a broad coalition of smaller states, and just a couple of big states. Right now, that's unlikely to happen because the small states of the northeast are largely blue states, with much higher population densities than the small states of the west, which are largely red states. Without the EC, New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas and Florida would pretty much elect the president.

See, easy as pie.

You know, people from other countries often accuse our system of being undemocratic. I am always bemused by that. In countries with three or four or five major parties (or, like Italy 187,000 political parties), you hardly get much more of a democratic result. Take your own example. There are four federal parties in Canada, three of which are national. The Bloc may have gotten hammered last time, and the Liberals beaten up, but they're by no means dead. But, the result is that Stephen Harper has a "majority" government, even though the Tories got less than 40% of the vote nationally.

One addition. No state can have fewer than 3 electoral votes. It's impossible, as everybody gets 2 senators and at least 1 congressional rep.

But - let's take North Dakota out for a spin, okay? They've got 3 electoral votes, out of the countrywide total of 538. Hence 3/538 = .557%.

North Dakota population = 683,932 as of 2011 (this is per Google)
Total US population = 311,591,917 as of 2011 (again, this is per Google)
Hence 683,932/311,591,917 = North Dakota's share of the overall national population. And that percentage works out to .219%.

So a small state like North Dakota is just about doubly represented in the Electoral College. We can't divide congresspeople and senators in half (no matter how tempting that may be), so it's actually a boon to North Dakota for there to be an Electoral College.

Let's contrast that with New Jersey. Population is 8,821,155. Electoral votes = 14. 2.83% population and 2.60% of the Electoral vote. So they're pretty close to being a one to one relationship.

California? 55 Electoral votes, population 37,691,912. Population is 12.1% of the total. Electoral votes are 10.22% of the total. Hence California is underrepresented by about 1/5 or so.

What does it all mean? Well, for anyone in a small Electoral vote flyover state, you'd best be praying for the Electoral College to exist in perpetuity. 'Cause if it's dumped, no one running for anything will ever visit North Dakota again. It's not worth it, when the entire state has fewer people in it than San Francisco (population 812,826).

Its happening now. About 6 states were courted by Romney and President Obama 80% of the time.

Thank-you. This helps.

Judges, sheriffs, and all that other stuff are state issues, and it varies from state to state. Those issues are usually combined with general elections every two years, but at least some states hold special elections for as few as one issue.

Yes, presidential appointments include such unelected positions as cabinet members, Supreme Court nominees, and I believe other federal judges. It also includes ambassadors, and such appointments as members of the National Labor Relations Board. There are many others which most of us have never heard of. The advise and consent business does not extent to elected office.

On voting for your own party's ballot, in every state I've voted in, the ballot you receive is based on your party affiliation. There is no way possible to vote for someone of the other party. All this, though, is under state, not federal control. I do understate that there are states that let you vote for whomever in the primaries. No one is required by the party to vote in a primary or other election. Keep in mind that while most of us register for certain parties, we are not really members of anything, and the party has no control over which we choose.



It was late, and I think I may not have worded this as well as I might. I think there are limits in most states on how close to an election one may change affilliation, or register to vote, for that matter. Mostly, it's for administrative convenience. A new, or changed registration probably takes a little time to process.

I don't think Roger will mind: yes, all Representatives, who serve two years, are up for election in every national cycle. Senators serve six years, so one third of them are up for election in each cycle. (The constitution provided for one third of the members of the first Senate to serve two years, on third to serve four years and one third to serve six years, which staggered the elections for Senator. All Senators since then serve six years per term, no term limit.)

There's usually an election every year in every state (i've never known any exceptions). Turn out in most years is very, very low, meaning usually that less than 30% of the electorate make the decisions. But every November, rain or shine, there's an election. In the "off years," yes, it's a few judges, some bond issue, some property tax issues, sometimes some municipal or county officials. It's not even a sure thing that everyone will turn out in an important national election--when i lived in Ohio, i voted in odd numbered years when not even 20% of the voters turned out. You kind of give up your right to bitch about how the city or the county is run, though.

***********************************************************

This is one major difference between the Westminster system and the American system. The legislative and executive branches are sompletely separate. No member of the executive branch ever sits in the Congress (although they have done so before being in the executive branch, or after leaving it). The constitution provides for executive branch offices to be created by the Congress (one area where president and Congress usually do consult), and then for the president to nominate officers. The Senate must approve the nominations.

**********************************************************

Nobody can ever be turfed from a party. In those states which still have you register by party (a shrinking group), the primary elections are usually held on separate days, and they will check the voters registration list to make sure you've registered with that party. In other states, they provide you a ballot for whatever party you name, or you are directed to a voting machine for that party. There are certain powers the parties do not have. If a Democrat began voting with the Republicans in the Senate, Mr. Obama cannot kick him out of the Democratic Party. At the next election, though, he could no longer run as a Democrat, unless he enters the primary and beats all comers. In that case, he would still be a Democrat, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

You cannot be forced to join any party, and you can't be kicked out of any party.

I have no idea what Roger means about restrictions--may he means in changing affiliation.

Thank-you. I didn't know the US had other parties or the history. This helps paint the picture of the entire system.


I like how the smaller states are still part of things. But easy, not so much..

Be my guest. I'm being as informative as possible, while trying very hard not to spread misinformation.

I've never thought that, I do admit to it being a wee bit perplexing. However, I do find our system of granting the 'Harper government' a majority without a majority of 65ish% of population voting a bit more mind blowing.. maybe cause I live under his wrath or maybe because I just can't believe we did this to ourselves. Then again I do live in the Texas of Canada. Interestingly, as I watched this election, I see the dynamics are changing there as well. How long do you think it will be till it switches from red to blue? Or Alberta from blue to a more pinkish colour... lol

Interesting, Thank-you

Has N. Dakota ever voted anything but republican? I don't really expect you to know that, but does the president really have time to go to every state? Especially if everyone knows they will never change persuasion?
Say there's a big boom in N. Dakota and the population in 10 year grows by 5 million people, say.. that most of the people came from Tennessee, would the electoral college give ND another seat, take away a seat from TN or just bump up the total amount of seats? Now If that huge influx all moved to Bismarck and followed the example of all thriving metropolises, and had lefty tendencies, it would change the dynamics, yes?

That's true. Doesn't that bother people? Whilst watching the incoming votes, I was struck by how the votes differed county to county. With many areas, in Red states or otherwise, voting blue across the board for senators and representatives. I wonder if the tide is about to change in some died in the wool states.

That's a good question for which i don't have a good answer. Before 1980, the southern states voted reliably for the Democrats. The civil rights movement made them angry at the Party. (Civil rights and voting rights were on Kennedy's agenda, and after his death, Johnson made the passage of those acts a priority. Johnson had been in the Senate for a long time, and in the Democratic Party since FDR was elected in 1932, so he knew where all the bodies were buried. He was able to twist enough arms to pass civil rights and voting rights. I don't really think anyone else could have accomplished that in such a short period of time.)

In 1980, although the Democratic Party still controlled (in most cases just barely) local and state politics n the South, Southerners voted overwhelmingly for Reagan. That was called a phenomenon, and they were called the Reagan Democrats. Since then, the Republican Party has also taken over state and local politics in the South. The only states which are solidly red or blue are the southern states, which are solidly red. The winner take all system in the electoral votes makes it look as though states were solidly Republican or Democratic, but it just ain't so. So, for example, outside Chicago, most of Illinois is Republican, except for the southern third of the state, which is sparsely populated and usually votes Democratic. That's enough to deliver the state to the Democrats every four years, but the margin is close enough that Republicans can and do take over the State House. Just based on the numbers of counties, most local governments in Illinois are Republican. Similar situations apply elsewhere. Massachusetts usually votes solidly Democratic, but Romney was the Governor there for four years.

Since 1980, party propagandists have succeeded in convincing Americans that they are and always have been conservative. In some respects, that has been true historically. People came here from Europe to get land or to start businesses, and once they've gotten what they want, they don't want things to change. But there has always been a strong progressive spirit here, too. Before the so-called Reagan Revolution, people didn't necessarily loudly and proudly proclaim themselves conservatives, although they were not necessarily ashamed of it. Since then, until just a few years ago, a lot of people wouldn't admit to being liberal, or voting Democratic. This has been one of the most successful political propaganda efforts in our history.

But it's not always true. Texas has always been conservative, for example. But a great many of those conservatives have been conservative Democrats. Tom Delay was, for eight years, the majority whip in the House, and then majority leader for two years. He decided that he would gerrymander the congressional districts in Texas to give more seats to the Republicans in the House. To do that, he needed to pass redistricting legislation in the Texas legislature. A lot of people in rural districts didn't like that. They were happy with their conservative Democrat candidates, and to effect the change, Delay would have had long, skinny districts snaking out from the cities into the countryside. People in rural districts didn't like the idea that they'd now be in districts in which the majority of voters would no longer have the same political interests. So, the Texas Democrats refused to attend the legislature, so they couldn't get a quorum and pass the legislation. The governor, Rick Perry, formerly lieutenant governor when Bush was governor, announced that he'd send the Texas Rangers to force them to attend. The Democrats then went to Oklahoma, where the Texas Rangers have no jurisdiction. Eventually, the Democrats had to come back home, but they were able to save a lot of the districts, because Perry and Republicans would need their votes on other matters. Delay got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and he was soon out of power.

The power to redistrict gives the major parties the ability to hang on to power in the states. Each party wants to control things, but both parties together want to make sure there are not third or fourth parties. They have worked long and hard since 1865 to make sure that won't happen. For so long as the phony notion that Americans are all basically conservative holds, the red states are largely secure. Ironically, many of the red states are west of the Mississippi, where people prided themselves on their independence. That didn't make them conservatives, necessarily, though. At the end of the 19th century, those same states and territories supported the Grange, and William Jennings Bryan and the cause of labor rights and free silver. It's easy to get immersed in one's own times, and lose perspective.

All of this, too, shall pass.

I changed to independent when I first moved here, being pissy about the Democrats from my lefto point of view, and changed back to Dem because as an Independent, I couldn't vote in the Dem primary.

At this point I don't remember 'bout California. I voted in what feels like hundreds of elections as a Dem, and once voted for a Green party person, so maybe CA's rules and New Mexico's differ somewhat... or, I'm wrong, and that Green party vote was in the main election, not the primary,
just not a major category.

Roger, I really appreciate the time, no worries. Nothing can be further off than a fevered imagination.. lol
Your perception of government is important to me. Your system is very foreign to me and I'm trying to understand the complexities, the more light shone on the subject, the better.

How often do sheriffs and judges get elected for? Do people in the really really red or blue states ever vote for anything other than the party line? I live in a province that is predominately blue, which by the way is completely opposite to the US. Up here, us liberals are red. lol
I'm not being facetious. As I skimmed through various states, various ballots. I noticed a lot of uncontested seats. Or at least some elections that seemed very lopsided. It was a long night, and again, it left me with more questions than answers.
So, correct me please, if I am wrong. The primaries are a mail in ballot, you only get one, from whichever party, if you've registered as a member, and you get to vote on a candidate - running for an empty seat? Whoever wins the primary, wins the party nomination to run for that seat. Do sitting members have to go through this process?
Once they win the primary, then the can run for the seat.. yes? In any position.. So all candidates like judges, sheriffs, wardens and so on run under a party flag then? And do all races have primaries?

Sorry, didn't see this before. The question of executive branch officers has been pretty well answered, i think. No, they are not elected. The Congress creates executive branch offices (Justice Department, State Department, etc.) and then the president nominates officers for those offices (Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc.). Those nominations must be approved by the Senate.

By military discipline, i was specifically referring to the organization of Jackson's Democratic Party. The committeemen in each county had to follow orders, and get out the vote, make sure that any tangible rewards of electoral success were passed out in their counties. The Republicans copied the system in the 1850s. The Whigs never seem to have gotten the concept. From 1828 until the 1860 election, the Democrats were a political steam roller. Even when the Whigs were successful, the Democrats continued to control most local and states governments, because of their superior organization, and the discipline of party members who worked for the party. In 1813, there was a brief war in the southeast United States called the Creek War. There was a sort of civil war among the Creek Indians, and they were abetted by the Brits, who passed out guns, ammunition and rum, to stir up the young bucks and distract the U.S. government with whom they were then at war. But Jackson intervened largely without the aid of the national government, and relied on volunteers from his adopted home state of Tennessee (Tennessee still calls itself the Volunteer State). After the Creek War, many of those volunteers marched off to New Orleans with him. After the end of the War of 1812, the loyal volunteers were rewarded with commissions in the state militia. (Even that most worthless of politicians, David "Davy" Crockett was given a commission as Major in the militia, because he had been in the Creek War.) When Jackson lost the 1824 presidential election, he went back to Tennessee and set about the destruction of the Democratic-Republican Party (then called the Republicans) by creating his own Democratic Party. He used all those loyal volunteers in the militia to organize the party, and they spread the system throughout the other states. Their organization was based on a military hierarchy, and unquestioning discipline was required. It made the Democrats formidable opponents.

In 1860, the Democratic Party split, with the slave states abandoning the official candidate, Stephen Douglas, and supporting the slave state candidate, John C. Breckenridge (former Vice President and Kentucky's favorite son). Breckenridge actually got more electoral votes than Douglas, even though Douglas won more popular votes. Lincoln got less than 50% of the vote, but he won in the Electoral College. The Republican Party had already lost in 1856, and it is questionable how long they could have survived successive defeats. The Whigs had recast themselves as the Constitutional Union Party, but although they didn't do badly, the didn't survive the crucible of the civil war. There have been third parties since that time, but they don't win, and it's been a two party system since 1860.

Primary elections are held every two years, like the national cycle--they are held in the late winter or the spring. Primary elections are held for just about every elective office, except perhaps for county offices or in small municipalities. If a seat is vacated (someone runs for and wins a different office, someone dies, someone is indicted), then a special election is held, and the parties put up their own candidates. That's another example of how the two parties control things. Any third party candidate who tried to run in a special election would get steamrollered because they are held so quickly, and only the two parties are ready to put someone up for office.

Independants then don't get to choose a candidate at the party level, and can only vote essentially on the state or federal level.
Are mayors affiliated with parties?