The grudge match!

piersk

In the Martha Stewart thread, vaska mentioned something about her getting a pardon if Bush wins again, and I got thinking, well, will he?

I'm not entirely up to scratch on the US election system (so correct me if I'm wrong) but I see that it happens something like this: Each party (democratic and republican) puts forward some nominees. Then the states(?) vote for which one they want to go through. Then, the winner goes forward and campaigns for the presidency.

First question is: whats the difference between the democratic party and the republican party? The reason I ask this is because to me, a republican is someone who is against the monarchy and a democrat is someone who wants a democracy, which is technically what this whole election thing is.

There was another question, but in typing all that out, I've forgotten it. I'm sure it'll come back to me.

Weedpacket

I got the impression that the Democrat party was the U.S.'s version of Labour, while the Republicans were more like the Conservatives. But I'm even more out of touch, so what do I know?

Either way, like most two-party parliaments, they've probably both drifted so close to the middle policy-wise while trying to win over vacillating voters that it's hard to tell them apart anymore.

cafrow

I think the whole Party thing is pretty stupid, most people do not know what the difference is between the 2 parties.

I think it is also really stupid how the voting system works, I think that everyone that goes to the voting booth should count as one vote. I am not sure why they use the state system where certain states get a certain amount of points for the voting system. I don;t like how people on the west coast really do not make a difference because the people on the east coast pretty much diturmin who wins.]

PS. I hope that bush that stay pres and that Martha goes to jail.

dalecosp

Originally posted by piersk
I'm not entirely up to scratch on the US election system (so correct me if I'm wrong) but I see that it happens something like this: Each party (democratic and republican) puts forward some nominees. Then the states(?) vote for which one they want to go through. Then, the winner goes forward and campaigns for the presidency.

Well, what you're describing here is a "primary". Some states have them; some don't. Other states have a "Party Caucus." Some do nothing at all in the "first round," as it were.

A caucus is generally open only to members (or people who say they are members) of that particular party; a "primary (election)" is inclusive of any voters who decide to take the opportunity to vote (sadly, that's too few, methinks....)

I don't know that anything "official" is decided by any of this; basically it's an endurance race; whoever is still standing (on the "challenging" party's list) at the end of the primary season generally has received the capitulation messages of his former challengers by that time; and, of course, the funny thing about that is, if Senator Runn R. Upp is so hyped up about Senator Kan D. Date anyway, why was he campaigning vehemently against him a scant 6 weeks before?

The real issue gets decided at the convention(s) in late summer: based on each state's method of determination (primary, caucus, beer party, whatever [j/k about the 'beer party'; well, I hope I am]) the party's "delegates" from each state meet and nominate their candidate to run for the Presidency in November; this is complete with the adoption of their party's "platform" and generally a lot of backslapping among party members and railing against the "enemy."

First question is: whats the difference between the democratic party and the republican party? The reason I ask this is because to me, a republican is someone who is against the monarchy and a democrat is someone who wants a democracy, which is technically what this whole election thing is.

Well:

originally posted by Weedpacket
I got the impression that the Democrat party was the U.S.'s version of Labour, while the Republicans were more like the Conservatives. But I'm even more out of touch, so what do I know?

That might be fairly accurate; I don't know exactly enough about HRMG and things Anglo to say for sure. A good history of political parties in America might shed some light; not that I'm the one to offer it.

Suffice it to say, as far as history is concerned, that the Republican party is actually more of an "upstart" than the Democratic party; however, the power that the Republicans ultimately gained at their start (that would be Mr. Lincoln and the fact that many Democrats were on the "losing" side in the Civil War) pushed the Democrats far away for the seat of power, and entrenched them (for a time) in the Reconstruction South [not that they weren't already there, see below]. The following years have oft been noted for the "laissez faire" handling of governmental relationships with business and financial sectors, and this is likely the origin of viewing the Republican party as "the party of big business" and the Democratic party as "the working man's party".

My guess is that the Democrats deliberately cultivated that idea; hoping that ultimately the unwashed masses (me included, I suppose ;-) would help them turn the tide. IIRC, no President of the US was a Democrat from the Civil War until FDR; and his election was caused by backlash against the Republicans in light of the fact they were "in power" at the time of the big Crash....

If you go back to the time of the Republican party's origin, it was the Democrats who were "big business" (among them, slavery in the South) and "establishment." The Republican party was originally a coalition of anti-slavery elements, the "Free Soil" party, and disaffected Whigs (the birth of the Republicans was the death knoll of that party over here) and some others I can't think of at the moment.

My view is that the Republicans are fairly well terrible, and the Democrats are ten times worse; but no one I trust in public life has a chance in Hades of making it up that far....

I do hope we don't have all these boy-boy and girl-girl marriages all over the place; surely we have lost our mind, then..... 🙁

Weedpacket

Originally posted by cafrow
I think the whole Party thing is pretty stupid, most people do not know what the difference is between the 2 parties.

That's a consequence of the political dynamics I mentioned.

You start with two main parties. Let's call them "Left" and "Right" (it's suspected that it was someone on the Right that came up with those labels). They've each got distinctive policies; Left gets the majority of its support base from employees, Right from employers.

But there are people "in the middle" who can't really make up their mind. So both parties want to make it for them. So, in order to attract the wavering votes, Left, say, compromises its policies just a little so that they look just a little more Right (hardline Lefties accuse them of "selling out" in the process). Voters wavering left of centre are captured in the process.

In retaliation, Right does the same, watering down their policies a tad so that they don't scare away quite so many wavering voters. So a few wavering right of centre end up supporting the right.

Left does the same.

So does Right.

During this of course, you've got your hardliners who spend a lot of their time splintering off into minor parties - but because they're on the fringes - being left of Left or right of Right, they don't have much chance of pulling in the centre voters.

Left continues to compromise.

So does Right.

In the end they both collide in the middle and no-one can tell them apart any more.

As for the rest - don't look at me; I've got two votes in national elections.

vaska

Originally posted by Weedpacket
I got the impression that the Democrat party was the U.S.'s version of Labour, while the Republicans were more like the Conservatives. But I'm even more out of touch, so what do I know?

Both parties - filled mostly with wealthy white men studied in law and/or political matters. Tell me that they all don't have personal fortunes to protect for themselves and their wealthy friends.

No president has ever lost an election with an economy growing at greater than 3.8% GDP I believe it is. And guess what has been happening in the states since day one of this administration. Tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy of course)!

Guess when the full brunt of this economic stimulus will be in play - third quarter of this year (just before the election).

Other factors:

Ralph Nader - will likely take votes from a certain niche of traditional Democratic voters (he ran in 2000 and earned some 5% of the vote - more than enough to have helped Gore).

bin Laden - if they catch him, and I bet they do, it will be a large boon for W.

$$$ - they have so much money for this election it's not even funny. TV = electoral process in the states. If you are on TV; if the media talks about you constantly; you win.

I hate to say it, but the cards are stacked despite what the polls say today (it's far too early for them to be of any matter).

However, I didn't expect to hear as much public concern about W from business as I have been hearing, so all of this could be moot.

This will probably be an election cycle unline any other...v

Weedpacket

In the U.K. if I remember my history lessons accurately, Labour were the newcomers, after the Conservatives and the Liberals. It was mainly a result of the industrial revolution. The Irish Potato famine didn't help either of the existing parties much either; the Liberals (having abrogated so much power) couldn't help, while the Conservatives (who felt that doing so would injure the economy) wouldn't help.

With vast numbers of people (I think Ireland's population dropped by millions due to the famine, with many Irish emigrating) feeling so neglected by the Government, it's not surprising that they jolly well organised their own political movement. How did that song go...something about having "just as much a right to live as well as you"?

Girls who are boys who like boys to be girls who do boys like they're girls who do girls like they're boys - always should be someone you really love.