Hi all,

With the US elections beginning to get into full swing I wanted to ask you intelligent people here what your thoughts are on the whole process.

As most of you know I come from Australia and we have a Westminster System. I am not completely familiar with the US system as I have not been a part of the process. So as you may imagine it does seem to me to be somewhat confusing, and to an extent drawn out. Now before I'm accused of being anti American I stress that I'm not having a go at it. Just asking. Im sure the Westminster System may confuse some of you.

What are your thoughts on the presidential primary elections? Is this process fair? Does it give the early states (Such as Iowa and New Hampshire) too much weight in the process? It appears to me that by the time some states carry out their primaries it may be a meaningless and pointless exercise.

Do these early states give an accurate representation of the general population wants in a candidate?

Is there any credence at all to having a single day National Primary?

The process appears to be weighted towards the candidates with the big bucks to spend on huge media campaigns.

I. It is far too drawn out, and is getting worst each election with people not officially running earlier and earlier.

And in many ways since it is really not the popular vote that elects the president, often the popular vote has little to do with it anyway.

I have to agree with Chuck on the drawn out way too far. Maybe in 2011, I will keep better track of stuff and vote for whoever I heard the least of before Christmas.

For all its problems, I would hate to abandon the electoral college. Can you imagine Florida 2000 in all 50 states?

I t would be a big improvement to do away with the popular vote for the president. It's a waste of time and money. It has become a spectacle more attuned to a circus.

Being a political junkie I love the process. Perhaps it is too long . I would opt for rotating regional primary dates myself if the states choose to do so ;but I would not begrudge the small states their say. That is the point of them getting first crack at the primaries ;and that is the reason for the electoral college;so their influence would not be diminished . It has served us well . This system of primaries is much better than in the past where nominees were decided by party functionaries in the back rooms of smoke filled conventions

There have been very few elections close enough to say that the popular vote wan't the decisive factor. The founders wanted the states to run and control the national elections .In this case the system has worked almost exactly as the founders intended (caveat :the idiocy of Gore introducing the courts in the process may have forever opened the pandora's box that destroys a very good system) .

I think it important to realize that the electoral college is perhaps the least corruptible body in the system. It is made up of delegates of the people freely chosen by the people . When we vote we are not voting for the person we are voting for that candidates electors. They by design cannot be a representative of the government ;and they by design are not beholden to the candidate specified . Hamilton explained it this way .


No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty. Federalist No. 68

You wrote: The US presidential election process is... "somewhat confusing, and to an extent drawn out." Two points: it is a large, geographical area; and it is divided into 50 states, only 13 when the constitution was ratified, in 1788. One should appreciate that the states have certain powers, one of them being to determine the date of presidential primaries. Also, the political parties are 'independent' of the state and federal governments. I don't know the history of the New Hampshire primary, but many years ago it was the first presidential primary in which there was an election by the voters; the others were conducted by the parties behind closed doors, as well as I have understood it. Over the past 40 years, more and more states have gotten into the process with primary elections, and these elections are 'run' by the political parties and the states. The Iowa and New Hampshire presidential primaries mean very little to me and do not represent any concern about fairness that I have. The process winnows away the pretenders and wannabees; it gives the serious candidates an opportunity to exercise their leadership skills. This country is an experiment in self-government and changes are made all the time.
You wrote: "Is there any credence at all to having a single day National Primary?" I do not envision the states giving up their autonomy, but statists/hucksters such as McCain, Clinton, Feingold, and others may try to 'unify' the process under the guise of campaign finance reform. I have no problem with paying a little more for a superior product.

Skell

I believe the President should be appointed by congress and serve their wishes; in turn, the wishes of the people.

Well because I don't like the names “House of Lords and the House of Commons.” And I do like the terms of office for Senators and Representatives. Separation of powers, in this instance means in opposition to. It is based on the premise that as soon as man enters into a state of society he loses the sense of his weakness, equality ceases, and then commences the state of war. On the other hand Rousseau's premise is that man is naturally good and is corrupted by society. According to Rousseau, the powerful rich stole the land belonging to everyone and fooled the common people into accepting them as rulers. Rousseau's solution was for people to enter into a social contract. They would give up all their rights, not to a king, but to “the whole community,” all the people.

I believe the President should be appointed by congress and serve their wishes; in turn, the wishes of the people.
I think probably the most fundamentally wise thing the founders designed into the system was the tripartite structure, combined with strict separation and delineation of powers between the branches. A strong, but strictly constrained (primarily by Congress' power of the purse) Executive Branch is vital, I think. If you think Congress is venal now, imagine what they would be like if they had ALL the power? Unfortunately, we no longer have to imagine what an Executive would be like who believed that HE had all the power.


What are your thoughts on the presidential primary elections? Is this process fair?
It's easy to enumerate the flaws in the process as it presently exists. What's not so easy is to design an unambiguously better one, and convince enough of those with vested interests the present system to support it, or even to tolerate a change.

In general, I think the diversity in the way that the various states go about it is probably a good thing, and keeps the shortcomings of any one method from completely dominating the process. It does seem to keep the outcome from being too predictable, and therefore completely uninteresting. I was thrilled to see Hillary's "inevitability" strategy destroyed so completely in the very first contest. I was also thrilled that Obama didn't run away with New Hampshire. I was also happy to see Romney get his TWO (count 'em!) drubbings, and witness McCain's resurrection from the dead. Now we might actually have a real campaign, at least between now and "Super Tuesday".

To the extent that an analogy between Politics and Sports is appropriate, the games that are the most fun to watch are those with some big surprises in them. That was one of the problems with the old "smoke-filled room" method. It was great fun for the participants, I'm sure, but the public never saw anything but the final score. Actually, it was worse than that. They didn't even find out what the score was, just who won.

OG
What powers does the president have that are not subject to congressional approval?
I know of two: The president can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval.
President has the power to grant a full or conditional pardon, except in a case of impeachment

He vetoes and he is commander-in-chief; there may be others.

I happen to believe, as Churchill did, that our system is the worst one in existence... except for all the others.

The election system is indeed drawn out, but that is mostly because of recent efforts to "reform" the system... the McCain-Feingold law, as it is known here. The idea was to bring greater control to how the candidates raise money and how donations are made. However, because of various campaign finance laws, it has become necessary for the lection system to start earlier in order for the candidates to raise the money they need to run. The fault is with the attampt to "fix" the system, not with the system itself.

Our system does have several advantages over the British parlimentary system.

1) We get to vote for an actual person for office, rather than a party which then chooses whoever they want for the specific office (whether the voters like that person or not).

2) We get to skip the whole coalition-building thing and get right down to the business of running government.

3) We get to maintain the separation of powers that has been discussed above by others.

4) The lack of popularity of a single individual does not necessarily spell doom for an entire party or political philosophy in our system. In the British system, if a particular PM is disliked by the public, the only way for the people to get rid of him is to vote the ENTIRE PARTY out of office... which is often contrary to what the people really want to accomplish. For us, if you don't like President Bush, you can just not vote for him again, without having to vote against the entire Republican party to get rid of him. It is a more direct voting process, at least in that sense.

5) Our electoral system allows smaller states to maintain a level of influence and representation in the political process, while at the same time acknowledging tat they are indeed smaller than other states. We walk a fine line between equality of states and consideration of population size. I think that's an important part of our political system that many followers of the British parlimentary system miss.

So these are a few reasons that I think our system works well. Whether it is BETTER or WORSE than any other democratic electoral system should be judged by the results. It works well in the UK, Canada, France, Japan, Australia and other places. It faces more difficulty representing the entirety of the population in places like Israel, India, much of South America, much of Europe and elsewhere. So the jury is out on which system is "better".

Elliot

The bigger question of course is what control does the President exercise to check Congress ? I'd say the veto power or to sign legislation into law is a powerful and necessary tool . The President is also authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. This became a big issue in the 1790s over the Genet Affair .

Anyway this issue of how to choose a President was debated at the Constitutional convention and the founders came up with the electoral college as the compromise between those who wanted the President selected by popular vote ,and those who wanted the President selected by Congress;or even the extreme view of Hamilton who wanted a President elected for a life time .


It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
Federalist 68

Skell

I believe the President should be appointed by congress and serve their wishes; in turn, the wishes of the people.

Well because I don’t like the names “House of Lords and the House of Commons.” And I do like the terms of office for Senators and Representatives. Separation of powers, in this instance means in opposition to. It is based on the premise that as soon as man enters into a state of society he loses the sense of his weakness, equality ceases, and then commences the state of war. On the other hand Rousseau’s premise is that man is naturally good and is corrupted by society. According to Rousseau, the powerful rich stole the land belonging to everyone and fooled the common people into accepting them as rulers. Rousseau’s solution was for people to enter into a social contract. They would give up all their rights, not to a king, but to “the whole community,” all the people.

Sounds like you want a system similar to ours. We have the upper house (Senate) and lower house (House of Representatives) elected by the people who in turn elect a leader (Prime Minister). I'm sure you already knew this but I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks! Very interesting.

Maybe it is because its all I know but I do like our system down here. I am happy to elect a local member for parliament to represent me on all issues including who the leader of the country will be.

I think probably the most fundamentally wise thing the founders designed into the system was the tripartite structure, combined with strict separation and delineation of powers between the branches. A strong, but strictly constrained (primarily by Congress' power of the purse) Executive Branch is vital, I think. If you think Congress is venal now, imagine what they would be like if they had ALL the power? Unfortunately, we no longer have to imagine what an Executive would be like who believed that HE had all the power.


It's easy to enumerate the flaws in the process as it presently exists. What's not so easy is to design an unambiguously better one, and convince enough of those with vested interests the present system to support it, or even to tolerate a change.

In general, I think the diversity in the way that the various states go about it is probably a good thing, and keeps the shortcomings of any one method from completely dominating the process. It does seem to keep the outcome from being too predictable, and therefore completely uninteresting. I was thrilled to see Hillary's "inevitability" strategy destroyed so completely in the very first contest. I was also thrilled that Obama didn't run away with New Hampshire. I was also happy to see Romney get his TWO (count 'em!) drubbings, and witness McCain's resurrection from the dead. Now we might actually have a real campaign, at least between now and "Super Tuesday".

To the extent that an analogy between Politics and Sports is appropriate, the games that are the most fun to watch are those with some big surprises in them. That was one of the problems with the old "smoke-filled room" method. It was great fun for the participants, I'm sure, but the public never saw anything but the final score. Actually, it was worse than that. They didn't even find out what the score was, just who won.

Couldn't rate your answer but you make some very good points. Made a lot of sense as usual.

But just a quick one. Shouldn't a federal election be more about being fair and efficient as opposed to being fun to watch and exciting for the public? It sort of seems that you like this process because it is almost like watching a Hollywood movie?

For the record though I am really enjoying watching it on the news over here. I get all your news networks on our Pay TV provider and ill admit that it is good to watch, although when I'm watching some of the candidates I have to check what channel I'm on because I swear I must be watching Young and the Restless or Bold and the Beautiful :)

I happen to believe, as Churchill did, that our system is the worst one in existence... except for all the others.

The election system is indeed drawn out, but that is mostly because of recent efforts to "reform" the system... the McCain-Feingold law, as it is known here. The idea was to bring greater control to how the candidates raise money and how donations are made. However, because of various campaign finance laws, it has become necessary for the lection system to start earlier in order for the candidates to raise the money they need to run. The fault is with the attempt to "fix" the system, not with the system itself.



Good post Elliot. I do agree somewhat with your point about with the British system if a PM is not well liked then that can basically spell doom for an entire government. It certainly can as was seen down under here at our recent federal election. The thing is though that the PM represents his / her parties policies. He is the boss. The party as a whole takes certain policies on certain issues. Much the same as your candidates too. So essentially you aren't voting for the person themselves, you are voting for the policies they represent and that particular parties ability to Govern the country effectively.

Does money and raising funds play too big a part in your process? It does in any election I know, but it does appear to be particularly apparent in the US. As I read the other day, "a presidential candidacy is only ever over when they have rub out of funds". Is this how it should be?

4) The lack of popularity of a single individual does not necessarily spell doom for an entire party or political philosophy in our system. In the British system, if a particular PM is disliked by the public, the only way for the people to get rid of him is to vote the ENTIRE PARTY out of office... which is often contrary to what the people really want to accomplish. For us, if you don't like President Bush, you can just not vote for him again, without having to vote against the entire Republican party to get rid of him. It is a more direct voting process, at least in that sense.

Elliot

This brings me to one more question that I have wondered. With the maximum two term Presidency policy you guys have does it bother any of you that it doesn't allow you to kick someone out. You don't get the chance to say "hey, you've had your time, you've done an ordinary job of late and where gonna show you". You don't get a chance at the next election to prove at the ballot box that you don't agree with his policies and want him and his party out.

What I'm getting at is I suppose that recently John Howard stood for what I think would be his fifth term as leader had he won. However his popularity was wavering and he most of his policies were very much against what the public of Australia wanted. Most Australians are against the Iraq war, most Australians are against the massive changes he made to our Industrial Relations laws. He did this after his last election win without a clear mandate (he lost many seats at the previous election on these issues). So Australians went to the ballot box this time and showed him and his party just how much they were against these issues. They lost in one of the biggest land slides in history. John Howard became only the second sitting PM in history to lose his own seat. The response was overwhelming that the public were against him and his parties policies.

Subsequently that party has admitted that they got many things wrong and they will listen to the people. They are now in agreeance with the new government polices to wind back IR laws and remove troops form Iraq.

Do you get that opportunity?

Do you get that opportunity?
Only every four years, or every two years if you count the off-year congressional elections. Yeah, it would be nice sometimes to be able to hurry their exit.

Only every four years, or every two years if you count the off-year congressional elections. Yeah, it would be nice sometimes to be able to hurry their exit.

But essentially this year you don't get a chance to kick Bush and his policies out do you. He goes no matter what. It isn't the people who show him what a bum job (if that's what they believe of course) he has done. See what I'm getting at?

You've got it: vote of 'no confidence' means nothing in the US.

I do have a slight different concern considering the electoral college verses a purely popular election process than my peers, but not enough to see the change as necessary yet. However, I want to bring up another aspect that I think needs reforming. The one thing that really bothers me about our current election rules is that if a person is elected twice to office, they are not permitted a third run (Roosevelt being the last three term President). I think we could at least consider that after being elected twice, the possibility. As a nation we should be able to make better judgements based on that person's past performance. Admittedly, as a nation, we sometime don't really see the effectiveness of a presidency, good or bad, until years down the road. I would propose a mandatory sitting out for one election, after two consecutive terms. By then if an ex-President wants to put his hat back into the ring for a third time, then I see no reason we shouldn't consider his electability. It only benefits us, we the people, and that's why we have elections in an attempt to put the person in power that we think will do the best job.


Bobby

But essentially this year you dont get a chance to kick Bush and his policies out do you. He goes no matter what. It isnt the people who show him what a bum job (if thats what they believe of course) he has done. See what im getting at?
No, we don't really get the satisfaction of kicking his personal butt out. Sending his party into the minority wilderness is our only revenge.

No, we don't really get the satisfaction of kicking his personal butt out. Sending his party into the minority wilderness is our only revenge.

That'll do I suppose. But gee it was fun kicking Howard out :) He got the message (in the end) that his relentless adoption of Bush's policies was despised by many here.

I do have a slight different concern considering the electoral college verses a purely popular election process than my peers, but not enough to see the change as necessary yet. However, I want to bring up another aspect that I think needs reforming. The one thing that really bothers me about our current election rules is that if a person is elected twice to office, they are not permitted a third run (Roosevelt being the last three term President). I think we could at least consider that after being elected twice, the possibility. As a nation we should be able to make better judgements based on that person's past performance. Admittedly, as a nation, we sometime don't really see the effectiveness of a presidency, good or bad, until years down the road. I would propose a mandatory sitting out for one election, after two consecutive terms. By then if an ex-President wants to put his hat back into the ring for a third time, then I see no reason we shouldn't consider his electability. It only benefits us, we the people, and that's why we have elections in an attempt to put the person in power that we think will do the best job.


Bobby

Imagine that. Bill V Hillary for the Democrats nomination? Now that would be interesting.

Is the two term restriction in some ways undemocratic? Why should someone not be bale to lead for as long as the people want that person to lead? If there is no one better to take on the job why should the people have to put up with that? Shouldn't it be a matter of the bets man (or women) for the job no matter how long they have been in control?

Imagine that. Bill V Hillary for the Democrats nomination? Now that would be interesting


Like it or not we might get that anyway. I think their still sleeping together unless Bill's in the doghouse again.


Is the two term restriction in some ways undemocratic?

Roosevelt actually had four terms. It was a little before my time, but I think it was due to WWW II that it was permitted.




Why should someone not be bale to lead for as long as the people want that person to lead? If there is no one better to take on the job why should the people have to put up with that? Shouldn't it be a matter of the bets man (or women) for the job no matter how long they have been in control?

Well, I agree. I certainly see it as limiting Democracy. I think the counter-view is that some are seeing it as part of the check and balance system of our government. Here is a link as to the purpose of the amendment: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )




Bobby

With respect to Roosevelt and four terms, which is correct, a constitutional amendment was passed after his death limiting the president to two terms. Amending the constitution is a very democratic process; I think I read where it has been done only 27 times.

I've read where several ex-Presidents, including one Ronald Reagan, totally disagreed with the amendment.


Bobby

Its been working for 200 years and has flaws that can be fixed but I think if there as anything majorly wrong would have been perfected by now

Like everything else in Ameica, its all about the money. The rest is show. That's about money too.

Is the two term restriction in some ways undemocratic? Why should someone not be bale to lead for as long as the people want that person to lead? If there is no one better to take on the job why should the people have to put up with that? Shouldn't it be a matter of the bets man (or women) for the job no matter how long they have been in control?
"Undemocratic"? Well, I suppose it's one of many ways our system divergences from the ideal of a "perfect" democracy where a vote is required on every decision.

The concern behind the rule, I think, is that the power of incumbency to shape and influence the selection process is considerable, possibly so great as to unfairly disadvantage challengers and frustrate the electorate's desire for change.

And yes, it was adopted after Roosevelt, and because of his four-term run. People decided it was too dangerous.

Like everything else in Ameica, its all about the money. The rest is show. Thats about money too.
You mean like Romney's purchase of the Republican nomination?

As excon would say... BWAaaaHAaaaHAAaaaa!!

(ex, buddy, are you there? How do you spell it really? That doesn't look right)

its been working for 200 years and has flaws that can be fixed but i think if there as anything majorly wrong would have been perfected by now
Young lady, you have a lot to learn about history, American and otherwise. I suggest you hit the books.

I like term limits . It is bad enough we have an entrenched unmovable bureaucracy .We don't need it in our political class. The power of the incumbent is too great . This is true not only of the executive but it is even worse in Congress. Robert Byrd has been in the Senate since 1959 .Even the old Soviet Politburo did not serve as long.

Hmmm. The Soviet Politburo did not face election or re-election. You could make a similar argument for campaign finance reform: look how efficient they were.

This brings me to one more question that i have wondered. With the maximum two term Presidency policy you guys have does it bother any of you that it doesn't allow you to kick someone out. You don't get the chance to say "hey, you've had your time, you've done an ordinary job of late and where gonna show you". You don't get a chance at the next election to prove at the ballot box that you don't agree with his policies and want him and his party out.

What i'm getting at is i suppose that recently John Howard stood for what i think would be his fifth term as leader had he won. However his popularity was wavering and he most of his policies were very much against what the public of Australia wanted. Most Australians are against the Iraq war, most Australians are against the massive changes he made to our Industrial Relations laws. He did this after his last election win without a clear mandate (he lost many seats at the previous election on these issues). So Australians went to the ballot box this time and showed him and his party just how much they were against these issues. They lost in one of the biggest land slides in history. John Howard became only the second sitting PM in history to lose his own seat. The response was overwhelming that the public were against him and his parties policies.

Subsequently that party has admitted that they got many things wrong and they will listen to the people. They are now in agreeance with the new government polices to wind back IR laws and remove troops form Iraq.

Do you get that opportunity?

We do not have a "no confidence" system here. The only time a President leaves office before the end of his term is if he becomes incapacitated or dies in office (as has happened a few times, resigns (as Nixon did) or is impeached and found guilty of a crime (this has never actually happened, though Clinton came close... he was impeached but not found guilty). Otherwise, a President serves his full term.

If at the end of two terms, people don't like the policies of a president, they don't vote HIM out of office... but they do get to vote for new candidates who have different policies. Your system makes the vote a referendum on the individual, whereas ours makes it a referendum on the policies. Which I know is the opposite of what I said yesterday, but it is still true. Your no-confidence system makes a no-confidence vote a matter of the popularity of the individual PM, whereas ours makes it an issue of the policies. On the other hand, because we vote for the individual rather than the party, we have a more direct say in the choosing of the President.

Even if a President were to be impeached, his VP would take over, and likely impose similar policies. If you want to get rid of the policies, you have to vote those policies out of power. If you don't like the individual, you can vote against the individual. In your system, the indivudual who is least popular can still become PM, if his PARTY is popular. Similarly, the party that is currently in power can be taken out of power if the people don't like an individual PM... even if they happen to still like the party and its policies.

Why should an entier party that has popular policies lose its power because a particular individual is disliked. And why should a disliked individual automatically take office, just because a particular party is popular.

Take Israel for example: Ehud Olmert's predecessor was Aiel Sharon, who was widely popular and well-liked until he suffered the stroke that put him out of office. Sharon brought his party to power and popularity. Ehud Olmert is incredibly unpopular in the wake of the wa in Lebanon a year and a half ago, and there have been some calls for a no-confidence vote for close to a year now. But there are people within his party who know that they cannot win such a vote, and the people LIKE the party that is currently in power, even if they don't like Olmert. As a result, there is reluctance to go through a NC vote, which the party may not win. So Olmert, who is disliked, stays in power because of the fact that people like the PARTY. And in order to get id of Olmert, the entire party would need to be taken down.

So the result is that a widely unpopular PM remains in power, not because of his policies, but because of which party he represents. If Olmert were to stand for election on his own, as our President does, he would lose in a landslide. But they can't get rid of Olmert without getting rid of the party, even if the party is popular.

I prefer a system of direct elections, where the individual office-holder stands for elections. The advantage is that unpopular people don't hold office just because of what party they belong to, and parties don't lose power because of individuals.

Our system isn't perfect, but I think it has certain advantages over other systems. On the other hand I agree that it also has disadvantages... there have been a few President's that I would have liked to vote out in middle of their terms with a NC vote.

It's a give and take... you give up certain advantages in favor of others. Our system works for us, and that's all that really matters.

Elliot

(as has happened a few times, resigns (as Nixon did) or is impeached and found guilty of a crime (this has never actually happened, though Clinton came close... he was impeached but not found guilty).

Just some additional information . President Andrew Johnson was also impeached and tried . He was acquitted by a single vote. In the case of Bill Clinton the Senate never came close to the 2/3 vote needed for conviction.