American election process...
Thoughts_Arrive
Melbourne, Australia Posts: 15,165
I don't understand why so many candidates to lead the one party?
Over here members of a party vote who they want as leader of the party.
I don't get how you can be up against one candidate from your own party then should that person win the election you support him/her.
Over here members of a party vote who they want as leader of the party.
I don't get how you can be up against one candidate from your own party then should that person win the election you support him/her.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It's interesting from our point of view because if we had their system Turnbull probably would have one the Coalitions' candidacy and then would have beaten Gillard.
We had a complicated election last time with the individuals mattering far more than other elections in recent history, as evidence by the ridiculously close result.
as far as I could work out
Gillard beat Abbot (sort of!)
He would have beaten Rudd
Rudd would have beaten Turnbull
Turnbull would have beaten Gillard
However Turnbull was chucked when Rudd was still in charge and Tony promoted at the same time. The Liberals clearly had no idea of how much support Gillard had from within the party
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Over here members of a party vote who they want as leader of their party, too (if by leader, you mean one who runs for president). Maybe you're thinking of states that have open primaries (where you don't have to be a member of a certain party to vote for who will represent them)? But that's not the case with most states.
I thought they were saying that the politicians in the party select who to run instead of the people.
You mean "members of a party" = only other politicians in the party, not regular people who are registered as party members? Do non-politicians not register as party members in other countries?
if you remember when we had our referendum on getting rid of the monarchy. the politicians ( turnbull) only gave us the option of a politician chosen president.
it was voted down
the monarchists will tell you that it was voted down because we all want the queen. but it was more so the idea
that politicians got the choice , not the people
i agree the whole process in the USA is a bit silly. but you can join a party and your vote counts.
try joining the libs and get a choice who will lead. or labor for that matter
If the greens get 5% of the total vote but no more than 20% in any given electorate then that is too bad. That sort of thinking is what the senate is for, and how it works here in the senate.
The only place where this becomes an issue is in Qld state politics as they have no upper house up there - and this is a problem because it discourages smaller parties from running candidates or even registering as a state party. Many are more likely to endorse independents as with no upper house they are unlikely to recieve not only a result that will get them elected, unlikely for a small party anyway, but a result good enough to gain them funding and these small parties do not have the money to throw away up there.
Of course it does keep all the power safely in the hands of the big parties (and I do include the greens here in this case)
Oh man, this made my day. The old, my team lost, blame the refs routine. Awesome!!!!
The other thing I don't understand is how a country can possibly in the future vote in someone called Newt Gingrich!
I think you you should care about how your country is governed, too many people even over here where we have to vote don't think about their vote or just always vote for the party their parents voted for, I find it very sad that in a lot of cases the people who understand the privlige of voting are those who can't
Nope, just a MSNBC reject.