Who is Caucusing tonight?

[OneWithWood]

For the Iowans among us.

Are you going to be involved in a caucus tonight?

I am not asking who you support.  I am very interested in the caucus system.  It sounds like a very interesting participative process.

If you are going to one would you please describe the process and how you feel about it?

[Norm]

Patty and my son Joel are going, I'll show this to her and have an update for you tomorrow.

I'd go but it's past my bedtime. :D

[Roxie]

I'm glad that you asked OWW.  It is something I've been curious about too. 

[Frickman]

Any of you who have cable TV can watch it on C-SPAN. I did four years ago and it was interesting. I'll probably watch it at a friend's house tonight.

[Patty]

Ok I will attempt to explain the Iowa Caucus as best as I can. Please ask questions if I have overlooked anything.

Anybody who is registered to vote can attend a caucus, however you MUST register as either a republican or democrat upon arrival. The parties hold separate caucus's throughout the state, and you attend the one in your area, and attend the one who's party you prefer. Personally I like the party with the cheeseballs with nuts on them...joke. Just kidding. :D

The procedure is different at each party's caucus. The democrats vote by a show of hands. A person will call out a candidate's name, and if he is your man, then you raise your hand. If that candidate does not receive 15% of the folks voting for him, his name is tossed out and he gets zero representation from that district. This elimination process continues until each remaining candidate has 15% or more of the votes cast in that district. Those results are then called into the party headquarters in Des Moines and tallied.

The republicans vote by secret ballot. You write your candidate's name on a piece of paper and throw it into a box. These votes are all counted and the results are called into the headquarters in Des Moines. Each candidate who gets a vote gets represented from that district.

Also at the caucus, the party platforms are decided upon. If I have an issue that I feel strongly about, I present it at the caucus, and the issue is discussed at length. After all the individual issues are put forth, they are voted upon. The issues that receive the most votes are then added to the party platform from each district. Again they are tallied in Des Moines at the headquarters and those with the most votes or representation is added to the party platform for the state, and then on to a national consensus. You see these platforms discussed at the national conventions later on in the year.

The caucus is very informal. You know generally everybody in attendance because they are your neighbors. Usually there are not more than 20 or 30 people at each caucus. You attend the caucus of your district. We happen to live in a tiny rural township, so we have to drive over to the next township to attend. This year we are meeting in the fire station. They will back out the firetruck and set up folding chairs in the parking bay, and somebody brings a box or a hat to put the votes into. Pretty low key.

If I have forgotten a detail, please ask questions. I will do my best to answer them.

[Texas Ranger]

Down here in Texas we call that Call Cuss, cause, we cuss the democrats for a while, then we cuss the republicans for a while, call the neighbors in and let them cuss at em, too.

We generally ain't to particular about what politician we cuss, they all get an ear full.

[Tom]

So, what weight does a State Caucus have.  Is it used to determine the choice at the convention?

[bull]

I will probably be cusing after tghe caucus >:( >:(

[beenthere]

Patty
A couple years ago (maybe 4 ??) I watched a TV program that taped a Dem and Rep caucus in Iowa. Quite a difference between them. The Dem caucus was in someone's home, with parlor, living room, dining room, kitchen and front and back porch holding people. An older lady was running the meeting, and after the voting (show of hands) they were trying to get someone to be a 'delegate' (as I remember). No one wanted the job, but finally after coercing an individual (who finally said he would so they could get the food out and eat), the meeting closed. VERY informal, and seemed to be very little interest, other than the food. Most of the agenda had something to do with protocol that had to be addressed according to some rules the presiding lady had in her hand, of which the others were not too interested in (save a secretary directed to record things that happened). Not sure how typical this was, but it seemed a bit intimidating to the people who appeared to have zero interest in being at this gathering (I thought it might have something to do with the TV cameras in the rooms), other than the cake, cookies, milk and beer that were being held secure in the kitchen. 
The REP caucus was in a community room and quite business-like in comparison.

I don't know how typical this is. Appreciate your explanation of the procedures.

[Jeff]

I was trying to watch the Democratic Caucus on C-span because it sounded very interesting. I was outvoted and demoted by deal or no deal and now csi. :-[  So, here I am with my story. :-\

[isawlogs]

 Just heard that Huckebee has won or is going to win ... Hombey I think they said is going to finish second .

[Jeff]

I'm wondering, do you have to be pre-registered as a democrat or a republican to attend a given caucus? Or could, theoretically and as an example, republicans show up at a democratic caucus or vice-versa, and caucus for the opponent they felt was least electable?

[isawlogs]

Democrate ...   Obama . is in

Republican      Hukabee is not elected yet but is in the lead .


 

[DanG]

Well ain't this a fine kettle of fish?!  Us good ol' Redblooded American boys are getting our news out of Canada because the air heads we married are in charge of the DanG remote! :-[  I'm listening to Oprah's family tree in the background. >:(

World history is teetering on the balance, and these people can't give up the #$#$&! fluff long enough to find out which way we are headed.  Who the heck gave them the "right" to vote, anyway?  If they ain't even interested enough to listen, how can they vote with any sort of informed intelligence?

[isawlogs]

 You're on a roll tonight . Anything else I can do to help you out there mon ami ???   

[Jeff]

You're on a roll tonight . Anything else I can do to help you out there mon ami ???   

:D :D

[DanG]

Does anyone, perhaps someone else in a foreign land, have any idea how the Caucus went?  I saw the 11:00 news, and all they had was some "chick" with a Schrader Valve sticking out of her head, that told us that Obama and Huckabee came out on top.  Well, that ain't the important part!  Who was in 3rd or beyond is the thing we need to know.  I guess it ain't critical that I know tonight, but all I've heard for months is how important the Iowa Caucus is, and now they won't even tell us who did what! >:(

[Radar67]

Hillary was third, not sure about the others.

[Jeff]

On the republican side, the last I saw was Fred Thompson and John McCain to close to call for third and fourth

[Jeff]

 Real-time Race Results: Updated January 4, 2008 - 12:15 AM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate   Votes   Vote %   Delegates   Projected Winner
Obama   940   38%   16   Winner
Edwards   744   30%   14   
Clinton   737   29%   15   
Richardson   53   2%   0   
Biden   23   1%   0   
Dodd   1   0%   0   
Gravel   0   0%   0   
Kucinich   0   0%   0   
.
Estimated Delegates: 40
Republican Primary Results
Thursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 3, 2008 - 11:49 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 86%
Candidate   Votes   Vote %   Delegates   Projected Winner
Huckabee   35,621   34%   30   Winner
Romney   26,524   26%   7   
Thompson   13,932   13%   0   
McCain   13,693   13%   0   
Paul   10,184   10%   0   
Giuliani   3,613   4%   0   
Hunter   458   0%   0

[bmill]

 I'm from rural western Iowa and participated in my 4th caucus tonite. I can't speak for the Democrats as I'm a Republican and we meet in seperate places. I was amazed at the large turnout. Far larger than we've ever had before, about 500 people in the high school auditorium. As stated previously, it's really like a townhall meeting where you meet with neighbors to discuss the issues and then vote. We republicans differ in that when we finally vote, it's on a piece of paper so others don't know who you voted for. In my caucus, Romney won, followed by Huckabee then Fred Thompson.

  A few observations from myself and I am NOT making value judgements so please don't get upset with me, I'm just trying to give you a flavor of what the evening was like from a long term participant on the Republian side. Everybody here had the same theme, ABH, "Anyone but Hillary". The large turnout on the republican side was more of a show of strength against Hillary than strong support for any of our candidates.

After all the campaigning here, most Iowa Republicans aren't sure who they like. That's doesn't mean there aren't good candidates, we just can't quite figure out which one is best. In a bizarre way, most republicans are just glad the Hillary didn't win. There was a large evangelical turnout, so it will be interesting if Huckabee shows well up in New Hampshire. Again, I don't think the Rep results from Iowa necessarily mean alot. I really look forward to seeing what our friends in the Granite state decide.

  The biggest news I think is that a rural state composed of something like 95% white and has never elected a female or minority to the House, Senate, or Governership (a unique statistic that we share only with the state of Mississippi), voted for Obama. At the local watering hole after voting, several of my democrat friends said that there was a very strong anti-Hillary feeling in their caucus also. So were people voting for Obama or against Hillary on the dem side? I heard Obama speak at a rally and he is a very dynamic person. I think he will be a very formidable candidate for both the primaries, and if he wins, for the presidency. When the rest of the country sees him, look out because he can work a crowd with the best of them. Race was never an issue out here which was quite refreshing. Maybe we're really making some progress.

Interesting also was that here in Iowa, illegal immigration is a Huge issue that none of the candidates ever really gave a good answer to. I think it will be a defining issue down the road that all of these candidates are going to have to face as this race continues. I also wouldn't rule old Fred Thompson out. Just a hunch, but a lot of people out here were close to voting for him. In case you're wondering, I'm a Methodist who voted for a Morman, go figure!

It was fun as always, we here in Iowa did the best we could to sort through these candidates, now it's up to the rest of you to keep involved and ask the tough questions. I didn't enjoy 7000 ads and phone calls over the Holiday season, so hopefully next time we can move this back to late January.

If I offended anybody, I do offer my sincere apologies, I am just trying to give an honest reflection of what my caucus was like. As near as I can figure, none of these candidates visited the Loess Hills Forest or a sawmill so can any of them really be trusted ???  ;). Now back to peace and quite for another four years.

[Fraxinus]

Thanks for that analysis, bmill.  Like I said in the other thread, I think things are going to be much different here in NH.  We're a long way from the Bible belt here and Huckabee won't fare nearly as well, IMO.  If he's the nominee, I don't see him carrying this state in November.  Or any other "blue" state, especially against Obama.
As far as the ABH sentiment goes, I believe it is widespread and I think it's a wonderful thing.
Again, I thank you for the post.  Maybe I'll make one like it after the NH primary on Tuesday. 

[isawlogs]

 Sorry Dan , they only gave out those two names , they did that by interupting "Grey's Anatomie " for only a minute ... that was long enough to get  "the air heads we married are in charge of the DanG remote" on a bigger roll here .  :D

  Hey , I can still and will give you a hand anytime I feel you need one, or a bleue or two. 

[Patty]

Well Iowa is out of the limelight and hopefully we can return to some normalcy around here. Last week you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a candidate.  :  We had the largest turnout ever at the caucus I attended. We had about 70 people there, when normally it is hard to top 25. (2 years ago there were 4 people who showed up)

The ABH sentiment was strong, but not stronger than what the issues should be for the republican platform should carry. Our voting took 2 minutes (Huckabee won, Romney second & Thompson 3rd in my caucus)

We voted for the district delegates. These delegates will take our positions (on issues for the republican party) to the county level, from there they will go on to the state and eventually to the national level. As was mentioned earlier, in Iowa the big issue was illegal immigrants, then taxes (death tax, fair tax, flat tax) , definition of marriage (man, woman & family being the basis of our society), abortion and the sanctity of how precious human life is, and many issues you hear bantied around when politics is being discussed. These discussions were for the most part well thought out, intelligent and the dialog was very civil. Typical Iowa.

I was proud to see the thought and careful responsibility most of us showed in our role as first in the nation. Iowa does take this very seriously and we work hard to know the facts. It was an interesting evening.

There was no food, drink or coffee served. The chairs were uncomfortable and we kept our coats on because the building was  not heated. Folks were there to discuss the issues and leave. Typical Iowa fashion.

[Ron Wenrich]

Just curious, but do you Iowans use the caucus system in all your primaries, or only in the national or statewide races?  Do any other states use the caucus system?

[Patty]

Only for national elections, Ron. More specifically, only the presidential elections. (I think)

I'm wondering, do you have to be pre-registered as a democrat or a republican to attend a given caucus? Or could, theoretically and as an example, republicans show up at a democratic caucus or vice-versa, and caucus for the opponent they felt was least electable?

Jeff, you can show up at either caucus in your district (republican or democrat), but you must register at the door. In otherwords if you were a registered independent, but you wanted to participate, you would pick the side you want, and register at the door for that specific party.

Some one asked about Mitt Romney. He was not a consideration for me. No offense meant to anyone here, ok? In MY opinion, a candidate can waffle on many issues, but abortion is not one of them. Romney couldn't seem to decide if thought women should be able to kill their babies or not. Enough said for me.

Ron Paul was extremely appealing to me. I heard him speak on several occasions and agreed that he is an eloquent and thoughtful candidate. Then I heard a guy ask him this: "If North Korea loaded up a ship with nuclear warheads to sell to the Mullahs in Iran, would you stop the shipment?"  Ron Paul's skirted all around the question. His answer was, " North Korea can't even feed their people, much less purchase nuclear warheads to sell to Iran. If we were at war, I might pay attention to the ship. It is statistically impossible for that to happen, so my answer is no, I would not stop the ship."   Right there I realized that Ron Paul did not understand that we are involved in a war, whether he believes it or not. In MY opinion his answer should have been, "Yes I would not only stop the shipment, but there would be a huge gaping hole in the ocean floor where that ship had been."

Now these are just my thoughts, not meant to cause harm or hurt feelings.

[Jeff]

Patty and bmill, thanks a ton for your thoughtful looks into your Caucuses. Very insightful and for me at least, educational.  Exactly the type of posts I like to see and love to read. 

[OneWithWood]

Let me echo Jeff's response and thank Patty and bmill for their thoughtful and insightful replies.  Thank-you.

From what I could gather form the news reports and the replies here, the democrat caucuses seem to be a more complex affair.  It is unfortunate that of the 240,000 dems that turned out to caucus none seem to frequent this forum.  It would be most interesting to hear a first hand account of the discussions that occurred in what were much closer contests. 

To me the Iowa caucuses are a much more participative and vibrant form of voting than the dry and dull affairs in the other 49 states.

[Tom]

I agree OOW.

The caucus, while maybe cumbersome, retains the independence of years past, when citizens took individual pride in being involved in the selection of Government.  Today's population appears to be complacent enough to allow somebody else to make their decisions for them.

[Jeff]

I think I disagree with the motion that the primaries are all held at the same time. The people in Iowa do the rest of us a great service by starting this process. They are in my mind, the ones that spark the process. From that spark, we begin to form our own ideas and conclusions from what they offer us, in turn, the next primary voters benefit from what they have learned and this string continues. Actually, its not a string, its a circle. The folks in Iowa are able to now look on, as what they started proceeds, and perhaps adjust what they think from watching.  Everyone shares in the information process in this manner.

If all the primaries were held as the same time, none of us could learn from each other. I think our Forefathers were very intuitive to create such a system.

[Gary_C]

Yes, I add my thanks for those reports. I know my son and DIL were going to the democrats caucus last night as they were impressed with Richardson and I will ask them tonight and see what their reaction was.

Last I heard, the candidates spent over $65 million in Iowa alone.  That alone is reason enough for every state to want to be first. If you want to see the money trail, check out this site:  http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

You can even get names of donors and salaries of employees if you have time to look thru all that information. 

[Norm]

It's been kind of fun well except for the billion ads we were inundated with. This has been the first time in many years that I was undecided on who to vote for. To be honest I may yet change my mind before next November but can tell you that we did get a unique chance to really get to know the candidates.

[pigman]

Thanks for the reports. It shows that a discussion of the political process can be civil and informative. 8)

[DanG]

I gotta respectfully disagree with your disagreement of the motion, Jeff.  Now as long as we are doing it this way, Iowa is a great place to start.  They got a good cross-section of people, and they take it seriously.  However, they have already eliminated a few candidates before the rest of us had a chance to weigh in on them.  Next come's New Hampshire, and they are going to eliminate some more of them.  The rest of us are going to be stuck voting for people we don't like.  In all of my voting life, I've never had any say in who the candidates will be, because our State was assigned  ??? a late slot.  The candidates that will be in the final election are already chosen before they even get to us EVERY STINKIN' ELECTION!  If we just gotta cling to an antiquated, obsolete system, can't we at least rotate it around so that some of us will finally get a chance to exercise our Constitutional rights?  New Hampshire passed a State law that they have to be the first State with a primary, and the whole Country has to abide by it.  Yet, this year Florida decided to move up our Primary date, and we are told by the Democrat Party that our delegates won't be allowed to vote at the convention.  What kind of "democracy" is that?

The current system was just the ticket, back when candidates had to make their speeches from the back of a railroad car, but in this age of instant global communication, it is a real dinosaur.

[Furby]

Yeah, I'm disagreeing with you as well Jeff, I think it should all be done at once all across the country and everything tallied at once.
As you described makes no sense as we can learn from each other at any time before a vote.
Instead, we choose to learn from the media's reports on the aftermath of each state.

[Jeff]

They dont eliminate anyone.  They drop out of their own free will.

Furby you have a sentence in there that is crossing the boundaries I set. Telling me or anyone else that they make no sense is not within the boundaries of this conversation.

[Furby]

Ok, "As you described don't work for me" OR "today's system doesn't make any sense" take your pick.

They drop out because a portion of the country doesn't support them.
Just because a portion don't support them, don't mean they'll lose.
Because of the way things are done, and as you said they drop out, it's $ that decide who makes it to the end.
If you get early support, more $ will be "found" to support you.
If everything is done at once, the field may not be level, but all parties are in the game and we all have a say in things.
Lots of folks won't vote as they don't like any of the options that make it to the end in today's system.

[J_T]

Thanks Patty and everyone for the report. I must admit till reading this I was dummer than a box of rocks  : Been trying to get a grasp of what these caucas was all about and how they worked ??? Now I think i'm getting it . Those news folks don't tell it where I can get it  :D

[Handy Andy]

  Hooray Patty, I like Ron Paul and would vote for him in a second if we weren't at war.  Think the libertarians are the right way for America if they would just defend the country.  Jim

[Norm]

I certainly understand that other states would like a chance to see all the candidates before they are winnowed out. On the other hand let me tell you that some of the lesser candidates are doing nothing but wasting our time, on each side of the aisle.

Here's something I'd like to see. Make the candidates write down their campaign pledges and if they get elected have some kind of punishment each time they break one....I think starting with toes and working your way up.  ;D

[Mooseherder]

Here's something I'd like to see. Make the candidates write down their campaign pledges and if they get elected have some kind of punishment each time they break one....I think starting with toes and working your way up.  ;D

:D :D :D

[isawlogs]

 
Would anybody care to give me some explanation as to how this all works. I think I have an idea of it , but not sure cause the way I see it it sure aint a democratic way, but I could be wrong . So before I set my mind to something I am not competely at ease with , can ya enlighten me some .

  Thanks
Marcel da foreigner 

[beenthere]

Isawlogs
Looking back at Patty's explanation, (I thought it was pretty clear  : ), the caucus picks delegates to carry the consensus of the group on to the next level (county) and then on to the next (state). It is a grass-roots selection of who the small group favors to run, as well as moving a platform (be it taxes, illegals, health insurance, etc.) on through the higher levels of meetings, eventually to the National conventions.
Does that help?  (or am I confused too?) ;D

[Furby]

Norm, I simply feel I have a right to decide for myself if a lesser candidate is indeed wasting my time.
That right under the current method, is taken away from me.

I do like the punishment idea though.

[Tom]

You've pretty much got it, isawlogs.  It would work without question if the candidates came from the same area as the caucus.  The rub comes when the candidate comes from another part the nation, one that may not have any resemblence to the area where the causcus is held.  Then that small caucus is making a decision that could keep that candidate away from his "own" people.   With only two parties, some paring must be done some way.  Even in a popular vote where everyone was voted for in the same election, unfairness could happen when the most populsated  areas elect all of the candidates.

The tricky part of a caucus is that it is the "Delegates" that are chosen and passed up the ladder, not really the candidate.  Who's to say what may be in a delegate's mind when he/she reaches the National convention.

[asy]

Well, I think this is FASCINATING.

This is running into my list of favourite threads ever! I love this stuff. GREAT information, thanks everyone!

Patty, thanks for your great summary. I've read the one over atWikipedia: CAUCUS EXPLANATION but yours is just as good an explanation

I'm fascinated by American Politics, it's hillarious (sorry). Now, I know it's a race to run the free world (or so they'd have us think), but, I find it amazing that they take a whole year (or more) of touring around the country shaking hands and kissing babies.

I must admit, I'm a great fan of the West Wing TV show, and series 6 is where they start the race for the next pres after Bartlet, and (yeah, I know it's a TV show, but it's "technically" pretty good according to reports, and I'm not getting into the politics of the show) there's a whole section on the Iowa Caucuses, followed by the New Hampshire primaries, etc. The particular show is called "King Corn.

The thing I find most interesting is the fund raising. I had a great time reading that site Gary listed. I can't believe the money going into the "race" at such an early stage, especially. Here in Aus, the Political Campaigns are funded by the country. They each get the same amount of money and go forth and "press flesh". There are things they have to pay for themselvs, and they fund any overrun, but there's not fundraising like you guys seem to have to endure!

Anyway, I'm finding this thread magnificent, and I'd like to really thank everyone participating in the thread for keeping it non-political from Rep v/s Dem point of view. I'd hate that to come into the discussion.

I'm interested in both sides of view. I'd be pretty sure whether or not I'd be R or D, if I lived in the US, but, even so, I'm still interested in hearing how both do things.

Thanks again, guys. Gear up for some "silly questions from the Aussie".

asy :D

OK: Silly Q #1: Can someone NOT from (for example) Iowa vote in the Iowa Caucus'? So, could Furby (for example) go to Iowa and vote in a caucus there? Can you only vote once in a Caucus? or could you travel around to the different ones and vote over and over. Is there a "roll call" or such? I know (I think it was) Patty said you had to register, but is it noted that you were there and voted, and if so, is this checked against others to see that the same busload of people isn't 'loading the votes' at caucus after caucus?

[Jeff]

Asy, I believe you have to be a registered voter, participating in the township or parish, (or however the local regional divisions are described) in which you are registered. For example, I am registered in Hayes Township, Clare County. I can not go anywhere else and vote but there.

[isawlogs]

  What I did not compreend understand , maybe its me and my reading capability , but are all candidates from Iowa for the Iowa caucus and so on for every state .... or is it that an outsider can be voted in or out .

 Beenthere , I read and re-read Patty's post , had it been clear as you say I would not have asked for further explanations on the hows of the elections . It was clear on what the caucus did and how they did it , but did not explain the election process in itself , that could of been my fault on maybe the way my question was drawn up or writen, I have yet to master my writings , I am though , working on it .

  So if I understand it : I guy from ....Florida can be thrown out of the withdraw from the race at the first caucus held in .. well this year Iowa , and never be able to see what his local partisan (people) would think of him as a candidate .
 That don't seem right to me ... but I can be wrong on this ... so if I am please feel free to steer me in the right direction .  :P

   I am trying hard here to understand the process of how you elect your President , in no way do I want to judge how it is done , only want to understand , that could take a spell  ;D So be gentle with me .  ;D

 

 

[J_T]

Isawlogs I've always lived here and am just now getting some of it  :(I think you got it pretty good  ??? Keep asking I'm listing too 8)

[Norm]

Marcel they are from all over the country and are trying to get enough voters in each state to pick them to run for President representing their party. In the USA we have mostly a two party system, Democrats and Republicans. After each state votes they tally up how many each of them won in each state at their National Convention. The winners are the ones that run for President (one from each party but an independent can run also making it a three way race)and then we vote for one or the other to be President this November. That's kind of the simple version but hopefully you get the idea. If not please ask more questions.

[isawlogs]

Thanks Norm ,

   I'll be back with another question or two .  ;D

[Mooseherder]

    I am trying hard here to understand the process of how you elect your President , in no way do I want to judge how it is done , only want to understand , that could take a spell  ;D So be gentle with me .  ;D

Okay, But you asked for it. :D ;D
It's mostly a gut feeling, but we wait for a Famous celebrity, actor or Singer to tell who to vote for.
Then we consider who is most likely to not end up on Dancing with the Stars. :
We watch on where they stand on the issues like should there be a million dollar Woodstock Concert Museum. :D
Then we sort it all out and eliminate the ones who have seen the small triangular hover crafts. ;D
Make notice on whomever looks best in Flip-Flops and also who is the best Duck Hunter. ;)
And another consideration is who has the widest stance in restroom stall #3.
Who has the best 400 dollar haircut.
Sort out all the estranged cousins who are less likely to flunk a High Schools civics test.   THEN.......Chose the one we dislike the least.

After all that, we go through post election selection trauma. :D

[Haytrader]

Somthing else here takes place Marcel. (that is if I got it right)

You have to be a registered voter to vote anytime.
You register either Repubublican, Democrat, or Independent.
At the caucases you can only vote for canditates that are running in that party.
Once each party has thier national convention and selects the canditate to represent that party, then we move on to the Presidential election.
In the Presidential election, a registered voter can vote for the candidate of thier choice, no matter what party.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[isawlogs]

 Oh ya , da mud puddle is clearing up some . I am still coagitating all of this .

  Thanks .  ;) :P :P :P

   Quite amazine how somethings that are so much alike be so different .  :P

[Ron Wenrich]

Norm's explanation is pretty good as to the general process.  What seems to be confusing is how the primary is run.  The states are the ones that set the rules as to who can vote and at what time.

The president is the only nationwide elected official.  So, it doesn't matter which state he or she is from, they can run in the primary if they get enough signatures from registered voters to get on a ballot.  Again, the state decides how many signatures you need.  So, a potential candidate may qualify in one state, but not another. 

Other offices, such as senator or representative must reside in that district in order to run.

Some states have open primaries.  That's where you can vote for any political party that you want, but only one (I think).  Other states have closed primaries where you can only vote in the party that you are registered.  I'm an independent, and my state thinks I shouldn't be allowed to vote in primaries. 

Residency is another tricky matter.  You can't be registered in more than one voting district.  If you aren't going to be available to vote, you can send in an absentee ballot.  That's how citizens living in other countries and some of the shut ins vote.  I did it once when I was working out of the area. 

Minor parties often just have a convention and nominate a candidate that way.  They don't have primary elections.  Usually, if a candidate for a minor party can get enough signatures to get on the general ballot, the party will rubber stamp it.  They don't get much money and they're pretty well shunned by the other parties (who control the elections).  They make the signature thing so stringent for other parties that they are often difficult to fill.  For example, this past year our Republican and Democratic candidates for governor only needed 5,000 signatures to be placed on the ballot.  An independent tried to run but needed 62,500 signatures.  Not quite a level playing field.

States also can set whatever date they want for their primary elections.  That's why Iowa has theirs early, and states like Florida and Pennsylvania end up with primarys where the election is a foregone conclusion.   Primaries are where the parties elect delegates.  They don't have to vote for whoever wins the most votes.  Lots of backroom dealings, and you can see states that will split their votes.   Sometimes the candidate with the most votes doesn't get the nomination.

Then comes the general election.  The general election is always on the same day, nationwide.  Again, the candidate is trying to win delegate votes.  Each state is assigned a certain amount of delegates, it being the number of senators and represenatatives each state has.  The candidate that wins a state gets that number of delegates.  Again, the delegates need not vote how the state goes, but they have traditionally done so. 

So, by using the delegate method (representative democracy in action), a candidate can win the most votes and still not be elected president.  They can carry the most states and still not be elected president.

Long post, but maybe that makes it muddy again.   :D

[beenthere]

.........

 Beenthere , I read and re-read Patty's post , had it been clear as you say I would not have asked for further explanations on the hows of the elections . It was clear on what the caucus did and how they did it , but did not explain the election process in itself , that could of been my fault on maybe the way my question was drawn up or writen, I have yet to master my writings , I am though , working on it .

................. 

isawlogs
I understand your question now, just at the moment I didn't know if you'd seen Patty's post (which was clear to me). I commend you for working hard to figure it out....many here in this country don't understand it near as well as you do.  (and not referring to anyone making good explanations of the procedures in this thread  )

After picking the candidate for President and Vice President at the National Conventions, the election takes place.
(then along the lines Ron Wenrich was explaining)
The Electoral College elects the next President, based on the 538 President Electors casting their votes, which are based upon the popular vote within the States.
That is a brief (simple) explanation of a system that prevents the heavily populated areas from controlling the votes in an election. I think it is a smart system, but many do not.

[isawlogs]

Thank you to all for taking time to help clear this up for me . Knowing this it will be easier to follow and understand to way things go from here on in .
  Like I have said before , I will not judge the system , it does sound like a good one , might be in need of a little tweek here and there  ;D That is up to those directly involve to do the tweeking  ;) 

   Again thanks for bearing with me on this one  ;) 8) 8)

[asy]

Asy, I believe you have to be a registered voter...

Thanks Jeff!!!

And another consideration is who has the widest stance in restroom stall #3.

Thanks for the great explanation Moosey! 

Must say, though, I really REALLY hope Hillary doesn't win the above consideration!!! (or maybe that she does... : )

Now, with regard to the Presidential Election, I sorta understand how the DNC and RNC choose their party representative (Thanks again, West Wing), but, what about independents? Who chooses which one of them 'runs' for president? Do they have a convention of their own, or can as many of them as can fund a run to the presidency be involved in the final election? Perhaps this is a question for Ron as he's said he's registered independent...?

asy :D



Note for Marcel:  (everyone else can stop reading now if they like)

I have yet to master my writings , I am though , working on it .

Just a little note with regard to the above sentence.

You have a few options as to how it is written correctly, here they are:

• I have yet to master my writing, though I am working on it.


• Though I have yet to master my writing, I am working on it.


• I have yet to master my writing, I am, though, working on it.

The way you've written it isn't correct. The way I "test drive" sentences with commas in them is that you should pretty much be able to take a phrase within a sentence and remove the part within the commas and it should still make sense.

For example, in my final example, you can remove the word 'though' and it still makes sense thus: "I have yet to master my writing, I am working on it."

See???   

[isawlogs]

Asy ,

Thank you ,  I am still working on spelling 101 , ponctuation is to begin next term .  ;D

   

   PS  Am I right to think that the two larger parties are also to richess ones . That the independent would (be)* , in most cases , have less money involved around him.

   How do they decide how many votes one needs to be able to continue ???
This is talking about an indepedent getting into the race . 

    * edit  ;)
   

[Faron]

Isawlogs,  What generally happens is that when sources of funding for a candidate dry up, due to an ability to attract votes in the primaries, the candidate decides to give up the attempt.  There is no mandate or law to quit, but at some point the candidate realizes he has no choice.

[Gary_C]

I did get a chance to talk to my son today. He and his wife attended the Democrats caucus in Iowa this week and was supporting Richardson. There was a large crowd (over 200) for a small town and it was clear from the start that Obama had the most supporters and the youngest group.

The Richardson group did not have the required 15 percent so there were not "viable" according to the democrats rules. They were only three short so after doing some calculating, they went to the leader of the Obama group and suggested they send three people to the Richardson group which would not affect them and would result in taking one delegate away from Hillary who was in third place. He said they could not understand the idea at all, so they gave up.  They also tried the same with Edwards who was in second place and they could not grasp the idea either.

Then as they were waiting for the alloted time for swaping to end, one of the young Obama supporters came over to try to get the Richardson supporters to join the Obama group. He made a pitch to them and said "clearly Obama is the most dynamic person running for president." But my son told him that it would be fine if they were looking for a new Baptist Minister, but instead they were looking for someone to run our country!  ;D

So after the time ran out for the "not viable" candidates, their supporters could either join another group or just leave. Not sure what he did, but may have joined the Edwards group.

Some of the candidates may just stick with the campaigning to be considered for the Vice President's nomination. Richardson is part Hispanic so he may be a good minority addition to a ticket, but probably not Obama's.

[Patty]

This is such an interesting discussion.

One mantra in the USA is: Follow the Money.   

Marcel asked about this in an earlier post.  I am not exactly sure how this works now that we have a law in place that inhibits folks from contributing to their choice candidate (McCain-Feingold Law) but it used to be that folks and corporations and anybody who wanted to could send money to their favorite candidate to help bankroll his win. You could also give money to your favorite party and let the party use it to further your ideals.

Folks in this country tend to have different beliefs in what the roll of government should be. Some just want the government to defend the populous from the enemy and play no more role than that. Others believe the government should create equality for all men through manipulation. And still others believe the government should be somewhere in between these two ideals.

To further our desire for the "correct" government or leader, we send them money. Human nature is that folks want to follow and support a winner, not a loser, so when a candidate doesn't do well and is perceived as a loser, his funding dries up because folks have turned to the winner instead. When a candidate has no money he drops out of the race.

Some candidates are extremely rich, and use their own money in addition to other people's money to run. I read yesterday that Mitt Romney has already spent $17 million of his own money to keep his campaign afloat. This kind of explains why most of our presidential candidates are wealthy individuals. It is certainly not a requirement, but it does help to keep the campaign afloat until folks hear your message and hopefully start to send you their money in support.

Often times "normal" folks (as in not megamillionaires) just cannot get their message out to the public to gain support before the bills overwhelm them. Campaigning is very expensive. I know that somehow the campaigns are financed through the current government, with matching funds and all....but I certainly do not pretend to understand that part of the election cycle. Perhaps someone else knows about this end of it.

[Ron Wenrich]

I found this in today's paper. There are caucuses in a number of states.  Iowa's was the first, but the Wyoming Republicans had there's this past Thursday.

States that have a caucus are:  Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Nevada, Montana (Repulicans only), Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska (Democrats only), Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, West Virginia (Republicans only), and Maine. 

Interesting to note that the dates that both parties have a caucus are not necessarily the same.  In Wyoming, the Republicans have already met, but the Democrats have to wait until March 8.

Also, not all primaries are on the same date.  A big push is on for South Carolina.  The Republican primary is held on Jan 19, while the Democratic primary is held on Jan 26.

[DanG]

You seem to have a pretty good understanding of the process, Patty.  You bring up a point or two that I'd like to expand on.

The first is the motivation of contributors to let go of their money for the sake of a political campaign.  Now, I'm sure that there are some, perhaps many, who would expect special favors from someone they helped to elect, but I don't think that is the prevelant attitude.  Mostly, I think, they just want to create a political climate that would be advantageous to them.  The business people almost always vote Republican because that party understands The First Political Law of DanG, and the other party does not.  That law states, "If the big man ain't makin' money, the little man ain't eatin'."  Big businessmen and small businessmen alike, subscribe to that thought because fiscal liberalism chokes them to death and makes it impossible for them to provide jobs for American workers.

I also have thoughts(Surprise! :D ) about the need for candidates to have a personal bankroll in order to launch a campaign.  Now, we could easily just have the Gov't fund all campaigns, but then we would have every lunatic hairball in the Country running for office, and we would never be able to sort through them.  As it is, we only have the rich lunatic hairballs to worry about, and it only takes about a billion bucks and a year of our time to get through it.  Also, if a person hasn't been able to scrape up a decent bank account for himself, what makes us think he could lead the Country?

Getting back to the Caucus question, unless I missed it nobody has actually defined the term.  "Caucus" is an Indian(the feather kind of Indian, rather than the dot kind of Indian ;) ) word that mean's "Tribal Meeting."  The term has been used in Congress and in State Legislatures for many years to describe meetings that are exclusive to members of a certain party.  As far as I know, it has only been used to describe this type of election process for the past 40 years or so.

[Faron]

DanG, Every office holder and federal employee ought to required to have your law stamped permanently on their foreheads in reverse so that is the first thing they see in the morning. 8)

[isawlogs]

   I would like to thank all of you for making this thread such a pleasure to read , and so much interesting for those of us that had little knowledge of how things are done in your country .

  Merçi
         Marcel   :P :P :P       

[Brucer]

Speaking as an outsider looking in, this year's campaign already seemed to be a lot more interesting than usual. It occured to me that I couldn't remember there ever being a US election when there wasn't either an incumbent president or an incumbent vice president seeking his party's nomination. So I checked. No wonder I couldn't remember -- it hasn't happened for 80 years ;D.

Another interesting bit of trivia. Republican rules say that Republicans aren't supposed to hold a primary or caucaus before Feb 5 (when some 20 states have primaries). So the Wyoming Republicans broke the rules when they held their primary last week. And they got penalized for that -- they're only allowed half their usual number of delegates at the national convention.

Strangely enough, Iowa doesn't get penalized. It seems this is because their delegates are free to vote as they see fit at the convention -- they don't have to go along with the wishes of the state voters who selected them.

[isawlogs]

  Okayy what is "   an incumbent president or an incumbent vice president "  ???

   

 

[Gary_C]

Marcel

Vous êtes bienvenu

Incumbent veut dire le titulaire

Comprenez-vous ?

[asy]

Marcel, I have no idea what Gary said, I suspect you will ;) , but, just in case anyone else (who doesn't speak French) is wondering "Incumbent" means the person currently in the office. So, an Incumbent president is one who is currently in office.

Once the new president is elected in November, s/he'll be called the "President Elect" until they are inaugurated, at which time they will become the Incumbent president.

See?

asy :D

[isawlogs]

Asy , yes I do understand what Gary wrote, as far as the frog language goes ....  lets just not go there .  ;)

Thank you ,the explination it is very clear . 

[Gary_C]

I confess. I used an online translator.
J'admets. J'ai utilisé un traducteur en ligne.

anyone else (who doesn't speak frog-language)

What is frog-language?   

[OneWithWood]

Just to be sure no one is steered down a winding dead-end road:

Here is the quick definition of liberalism:

noun:   an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard
noun:   a political orientation that favors progress and reform

This definition comes from the One-Look Dictionary - a neat resource that puts the definitions of multiple dictionaries at your fingertips.  http://www.onelook.com/

This term is often used incorrectly, often to cast aspersions on folks who happen to have a different opinion on how best to keep the big man (and which big man) making money.  The trickle down effect is alive and well in both the conservative and liberal camps.

[asy]

anyone else (who doesn't speak frog-language)

What is frog-language?   

Gary, that colloquialism is generally used in Australia as an endearing way to say "French". I was unaware that it was offensive to some people, but this has now been brought to my attention and I have altered my original post to reflect what I meant.  :-\

I'm TRULY sorry if I upset anyone, you know I didn't mean it. 

I'll be more careful next time.  :'(

asy :D

[DouginUtah]

More definitions:

The domination of business by government is called Communism.  The domination of government by business is called Fascism.

Which way are we heading?  ;D

[Gary_C]

More definitions:

The domination of business by government is called Communism.  The domination of government by business is called Fascism.

Which way are we heading?  ;D

I think both directions. ;D

[Tom]

I don't think we are really "headed" anywhere, but, rather, dancing a line in between that allows us to experience freedom from Tyranny.
Yes, we have those who think that Private business is just an extension of Government, and those who think that Government is just big business, but enough who think that there is such a thing as personal freedom to do with your life as you see fit that we don't have to worry about the threat of of Communism's Revolutions.

Communism and Fascism only take hold where there is a defined caste and belief that there is abuse by the "Poor" over the "rich" or the "rich" over the "Poor".   As long as we remain just fine, outstanding folks, from top to bottom, we don't have to worry about a drastic change in Government control like that.  

What we do need to do is stay pulled together and not let the little factions separate us from the goals of having the fairest, freeist, organization on the planet.  That might mean ignoring some and stepping on others.

To get back to the grass roots of this country, read what the founders have said that will make it succussful, not what the naysayers have said about bringing it down.

[DouginUtah]

I like Gary_C's answer. It's somewhat what Tom has said. We go a little one way and a little the other.

Example: There are conservatives who say the democratic party has been hijaacked by the socialists, and cite Obama and Hillary as examples. There are some who see the lobbying of congress by big business, i.e., pharmaceuticals, and a multitude of others, as having too much influence on government. (Which is why some accuse president Bush of being a fascist--when it is really congress that needs to clean up its act.)

What we do need to do is stay pulled together and not let the little factions separate us from the goals of having the fairest, freeist, organization on the planet.  

Let's see now. Which American demagogues are divisive and who is asking us to pull together?  :D  :D  :D

[isawlogs]

 
    I have another question here .

In Iowa , there, the meetings ( for lack of better term ) where called " caucus "

  In New Hampshire the "meetings "   are called   " Primaries "

I was under the impression that these where all the same type of "meeting " 

So , what gives .... they the same or not , what difference between the two . Will they be called something else when they get to Florida .  ???
   

[Faron]

The caucus in Iowa and a few other states is really a meeting.  Those in attendance make deals, discuss issues, vote, and shoot the breeze, for all I know. At least in Iowa, after the first vote, those voting for a candidate getting less than 15% of the vote are free to go align themselves with another candidate. Oops, I think that is only true for the Democrats.  I believe the Republicans vote and get the heck out.    The primaries, like those in my state, are a straight up vote.  The polls are open here from 6am to 6pm, and we go in at any time and vote on machines.  No discussion, no dealing, and no cookies. :(

[Warbird]

Welp, Alaska is caucusing Feb 5th.  Me and the Mrs have to get changed over to Republican (we've been 'undeclared' for the longest time), then we'll be joining in.  I'm hoping if we get the paperwork in this week that it'll be far enough in advance so that we can participate.  It'll be weird officially belonging to one of the two parties.

Guess it isn't all that important, really.  Alaska's vote has never seemed to make a real difference.  But we still vote, cause it's our duty.

Here's a question for those of you knowledgeable in the ways of caucusing...  can you go to the caucus and still go vote in the primary? 

[Roxie]

I thought the caucus WAS the "primary"!  I'm from America, and I'm getting confused! :D

[asy]

I thought the caucus WAS the "primary"!  I'm from America, and I'm getting confused! :D

Uh huh, so how do you think WE feel!?

Maybe someone should get their 5th grader to come on and inform us all! Do they teach this stuff in civics classes?

asy :D

[isawlogs]

   Roxie , asi

   You two make me feel so good at this time .  ;)

[sawguy21]

 :D :D :D I have never understood this system either.

[Warbird]

I searched around and found this.  It explains it.  Sort of.  But still didn't answer my question on if you can or are supposed to vote in both...

http://ask.yahoo.com/20000128.html

[Faron]

Far as I know, a state either has a caucus or primary-not both.

[Sprucegum]

So.. how come most of y'all are in states but Pennsylvania(for one) is a commonwealth?

[Faron]

Four states just wanted to be a little different, I guess.
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/support/faqs.html

Acording to this little site, the difference is in name only.  They function the same as any other state.