USA Politics

[lucille]

Is there any other western democratic country which has elections similar to the U.S.? Here (downunder) the leader of a political party is elected by the party members, and then hopefully the party closes ranks and stands with the leader. I think, as we are based on the British model, that England does the same thing, and I guess Canada does too.

In the U.S. at the moment, both parties seem to be ripping out the throats of those on the same side, competing for leadership, and ultimately the presidency. And the money they spend!

Then there are the caucuses? These I guess these are a prediction of who the leader of the party will be, and then they have to compete with each other for the presidency. More money, billions of dollars.

United we stand - divided we fall doesn't seem to be a valid argument in the politics of the States.

From what I have seen, Kucinich (sp) seems the best bet, and is honest enough to realise that he probably can't win, so gets behind Obama. I can't decide who I would vote for if I lived in the US. I would love to see a woman there, but it seems Obama is more up front. (There is no way I would consider any of the bible bashing Republicans.)

Anyway, that's my two cents. :D

[hoops]

lucille,
it seems to me that you have a good undeerstanding of US politics...and people wonder why i say "I'm not sure" when they ask who i'm voting for. maybe i'll vote for all of them
peace
hoops

[DaveM]

A number of countries incorporate "None Of The Above" on the ballot. Should that get the largest number of votes, the election is rescheduled with new participants. Not sure if even that would be enough to make a difference in the U.S., where we have for generations been led to believe that one must vote for one of two parties, each of which has now become a warped mirror image of the other.

Some European nations have compulsory voting--it would not stand a Constitutional test here but I'd like to see it here. At least require that people show up at the polling place, show their ID, and have their name checked off. What they do beyond that I don't care. In all likelihood less than half of eligible voters will vote in the Presidential election this November, and that is a national disgrace.

[hoops]

i'll be voting i just need to find out for whom. the choices befuddle me
peace
hoops

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Lucille,

Don't feel bad about your indecision of who you would vote for... I feel the same... The problem with our system is that money controls the parties and the parties control the nominees so once again we go into an election with a glimmer of hope for the future, but by the time special interests and the parties do their smear campaigns of personal destruction to all that they don't approve of we will again be in the same mess just a different face... I find repeatedly that we are stuck voting for the "lesser of evils" in the candidates and you know even then if the popular vote falls for a candidate it dosen't mean that they will win... The Electorial College actually gets to do the voting and they are appointed by the parties... Oh and if they vote in a manner that dosen't fall in line with what the power brokers want they simply steal the election as it appears they have in our past two presidential elections... But what the hell, we keep trying... My vote will go either to Hilary or Obamma, whichever best endures the unethical and underhanded dirty tricks which are political parties have learned to endorse.... I figure either one of those two will really piss off the "Good ole' boys that want to control who you can love and how we all should live....

Best to you

R. from Pa.

[paularoid]

I'm voting for Kucinich even if I have WRITE him in.



.

[DaveM]

I am strongly considering writing in None Of The Above, David Letterman, or perhaps Mickey Mouse. Understand that since Minnesota's electoral votes have gone to the Democratic party longer than I have been alive, it really does not matter what an individual voter does. However, write-in votes are tabulated and presumably read by someone at least on the staff of the winner.

If you want to send a message in this election, vote for someone who will not win. Do your bit to show utter discontent with the status quo. Don't forget where all the Democrats' promises of change went as soon as they were elected in 2006. And don't forget what today's Republicans have done.

[paularoid]

They're (the democrats) aren't letting Kucinich on the ballot in Texas. He and Willie Nelson have filed suit about all this.

ABC is not letting Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, or Duncan Hunter participate in the upcoming debates there. Kucinich has filed a complaint with the FCC.

It seems to me that there seems to be some conspiracy :eek: to exclude those that are not within some secretly chosen group. It's as if there's some silent group that meets in a back room somewhere to decide who they can exclude from, or kick out of some event somewhere. How can we as voters be expected to vote the way WE might want if we are not able to hear and see ALL the candidates to make a decision based on our interpretations of ALL the facts, statements, opinions, and pledges from ALL the candidates?

This is really startin' to PISS ME OFF! Not because my candidate of choice seems to be picked on (for lack of a better term) but because a LOT of the candidates are suffering from this kind of total nonsensical BULL$H!T! Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter and right on down the line.

I have NO bone to pick with any of the candidates over any of this unless it's found to be from their doing. I have a bone to pick with the organisations that are directly or immediately responsible for this outrageous behavour. It's just plain WRONG! I want to hear and see ALL the candidates! From BOTH parties! ALL of them!

[lucille]

I still don't understand the reason for the bitching and infighting in the same party. Why doesn't the party elect their leader and let them fight the other party for the presidency? Clinton and Obama are at each other's throats, and if and when one of them wins the crown, the other will possibly end up being the vice president. It doesn't make sense. How can they be a good team when they purport to hate each other's policies, although in the same party with supposedly similar ideals?

I know - money. But it still doesn't make sense or cents.

[Bat]

When all this preliminary stuff is over, the Party will decide on a nominee at the National Convention, the others will pledge their supporters to that person, and they'll all be palsy-walsy again.
This is just to let the people hear what the various candidates have in common and what their individual views are. The state caucuses give a pretty good indication of what the people in that state are looking for in a candidate, but that's about all...it might give a general idea of what the people in a larger area of the country want, too.
Then they send delegates to the National Convention, and they determine who will be the party's nominee to run for the office.
Why Iowa and New Hampshire have become so important, I haven't figured out yet...and I don't know if every state has its own caucuses, either...anyone?
What I really would like to see gone is the Electoral College business...don't know if that could go anytime soon, but it is passe, outmoded, and totally unnecessary in these days of instant communication over long distances. It was a viable body in the early days when people actually had to travel to a central place to cast states' votes, but no longer. Maybe, when there is a lull in the political games it will be brought up, but it doesn't seem to be very high on the agenda, and it does benefit some of the politicians, who will undoubtedly fight it tooth and nail.

Paularoid and others, I totally agree that it's shameful, bordering on the illegal probably, to exclude the lesser lights from the debates...I have been thinking seriously about writing in Kucinich, too. Unfortunately, if not enough do it, it will split the party down the middle on voting day, and give the election to the Repugs...something none of us wants either. It's a real catch 22, and I have no idea how to fix it. Is it possible to do something at the National Convention?
That's all the confusion I can think to insert at this time.:p :rolleyes:

[gisli]

Usa politics I will never understand, no more then the rules of football.

What I find most intresting is how many more seem to vote now compaired to other pre-election.......that´s a good thing...yes?



PS. We have this strange tradition here in Iceland called "Valva", she tells what will happen in the year to come...........Her prediction of who will be the next president of the USA is Obama, this she predicted in the beginning of december when Mrs Clinton had much majority over all other candidates in The Democratic Party

[paularoid]

Now if the democrats would do the same with ABC where they've excluded Kucinich for similar reasons.....

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/01/05/new_hampshire_republicans_dump_fox.php

New Hampshire Republicans dump FOX
from News Hounds by Chrish

Ten months ago the Nevada Democratic Party dropped plans to co-sponsor a presidential debate with FOX News. Today the New Hampshire Republican Party joins them in distancing themselves from FOX News.

It is reported on Boston.com by James Pindell that because of the FOX decision to limit the "number" of candidates permitted to participate, the NHGOP will not co-sponsor the event.


“The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field," said Republican chair Fergus Cullen. "Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures."

Dr. Ron Paul, R-TX, was excluded from the invitation list supposedly for his low poll numbers. However, other candidates who have garnered less public support and raised less money were invited.

-----

And this from the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/05/angry-new-hampshire-gop-p_n_79956.html

Angry New Hampshire GOP Pulls Out Of Fox News Debate
from Politics on HuffingtonPost.com by The Huffington Post News Team

The New Hampshire Republican Party has pulled out as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night's Fox News debate, due to the controversies surrounding the exclusion of Ron Paul. Fox News is barring Paul from the debate, with many people believing it is because of his opposition to the Iraq War.

Bear in mind that Fox News is excluding Paul from the debate, despite the absence of any objective criteria that would shut out Paul and still include some of the other people they're inviting. For example, Paul got 10% of the vote in Iowa, while invited candidate Rudy Giuliani took only 4% and is at about the same place as Paul in New Hampshire polls.