It developed out of the need to reform the delegate selection system after 1968, which is a watershed year in American politics for a whole host of reasons. If you are interested, this wiki page on the McGovern-Fraser Commission is a good place to start.
[RD] Super Tuesday
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
It developed out of the need to reform the delegate selection system after 1968, which is a watershed year in American politics for a whole host of reasons. If you are interested, this wiki page on the McGovern-Fraser Commission is a good place to start.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
It is unique. Here's the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
The elected President and winner-takes-all nature of the election motivates for two parties. The national party conventions go back over 150 years. The process of selecting delegates for the convention underwent several changes, with the current primary system going back less than a century.
American journalists call 1968, "The Year Everything Happened." Not least of it was a fragmentation of the Democratic party that allowed Richard Nixon to be elected. Both parties are doing it this year.
J
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
The elected President and winner-takes-all nature of the election motivates for two parties. The national party conventions go back over 150 years. The process of selecting delegates for the convention underwent several changes, with the current primary system going back less than a century.
American journalists call 1968, "The Year Everything Happened." Not least of it was a fragmentation of the Democratic party that allowed Richard Nixon to be elected. Both parties are doing it this year.
J
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Very interesting, I am going to have to leaf through those links during lunch.
If one of the 3rd parties gains a foothold in American politics, would they embrace a similar way of electing a candidate? Do they all do this already?
If one of the 3rd parties gains a foothold in American politics, would they embrace a similar way of electing a candidate? Do they all do this already?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
If one of the third parties gains a foothold...
Anything starting from this premise requires a complete collapse of the system, realistically.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
So none of the 3rd parties select their candidate in this fashion? Is it just because they're so small and such a system would require them to set up a ton of unneeded overhead? Or because with such a small party it's a lot more obvious who would have the best shot at getting the most votes in the election?
Side question: Why don't the parties just send the party leader to run for president? Is this not done because opening up the position to everyone in the party allows for more flexibility?
Side question: Why don't the parties just send the party leader to run for president? Is this not done because opening up the position to everyone in the party allows for more flexibility?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
The only time a third party had a chance was in the period leading up to the Civil War. The Whig party disintegrated while the Democrats ran two different Presidential candidates. The winner-takes-all nature of the position essentially mandates two parties.
Basically. There is a national convention which does the selection. Primaries are not necessary to select the delegates. Bear in mind that the parties pay for the primaries, not the government.
The party leaders used to have a great deal more say in who the candidates were. Everything has been moving away from that starting point.
J
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I understand that, but am just curious how they select their candidates, and if it's different from the big 2 parties, why that is so.
I mean, this way of doing things doesn't seem to be mandated by law, yet the big 2 parties have fully embraced it. So did other parties embrace it as well, or do they do something else? I mean, I get that they won't have a chance in hell to win, but.. surely they select their presidential candidates somehow.
Who is the leader of the parties?
The thing is that basically anyone can run for president. Having a realistic chance of winning is entirely a different story.
Political parties have no standing in American Constitutional law. The Founding Fathers hoped that they wouldn't exist at all. That lasted until Washington retired. Political parties arose out of a simple coincidence of interests. People who had similar ideas banded together to pursue them more effectively. As they did so, they gained an identity as a party, and that helped attract voters. Some people credit(blame) the first past the post voting system for pushing a 2 party system, which has been the norm for most of American history. Either way, what that results in is that people who wish to run for office find it overwhelmingly to their advantage to do so as a candidate of one of the major parties.
But then each party has to decide who is the candidate for each office that they are running a candidate for. Back in the day party leaders and insiders were making those choices. The primary system comes out of the backlash among the party voters over how, and who, they selected for candidates. So all the members of the party now can have a say in candidate selection.
Third parties don't really matter because they don't have the base or the organization to aid their candidates in getting elected. That base and organization is also why the parties are not ideologically as pure as is often found in parliamentary parties. Because building the biggest coalition is how they win. And so everyone needs to compromise to some extent. The refusal to compromise at all among many Republicans now is both their greatest strength, and their greatest weakness. But it also represents a breakdown of the government itself.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That's interesting, but don't your political parties have leaders? I thought they did, but your question immediately following my quote seems to imply that this isn't the case. But maybe I'm misunderstanding why you're asking that question?
I was mainly asking about 3rd parties because I was curious if this way of selecting presidential candidates was just how it's done in the U.S. or if the main 2 parties do it this way for another reason and smaller parties do their own thing due to their size or for some other reason.
I was mainly asking about 3rd parties because I was curious if this way of selecting presidential candidates was just how it's done in the U.S. or if the main 2 parties do it this way for another reason and smaller parties do their own thing due to their size or for some other reason.
The President of the United States is generally considered to be the "leader" of whatever party he is a member of, and that party is described as the "party-in-power." Defining the "leader" of the party out-of-power is a little bit less well-defined. In a way they are leaderless, and trying to define a leader by winning the Presidency.
Another way of looking at it is their leader is whoever their party's highest elected-office-holder is. Right now that would be Speaker of the House Paul Ryan or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for the Republicans. I think SoTH is technically higher than Senate Majority Leader though, because although the Senate is viewed as more prestigious than the House, the VP is technically the "head" of the Senate.
Another definition would be the highest office holder until their Presidential nominee is chosen. So that would make Paul Ryan the leader of the Republicans until Donald Trump is nominated
, then The Donald would take over as "leader" of the Republican Party. As I write this... I think that this is actually the most commonly understood way of defining the leader of the out-of-power party. So its kind of amusing to think about.
So for 3rd parties its just whoever their nominee is, since they rarely hold any offices.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Ah gotcha, your parties don't have bona fide leaders. For some reason I thought they did. Maybe I was thinking of..
I was thinking of this.
I was thinking of this.
Yes and no. I mean, they have leaders. That is they have people who hold more senior positions and influence within the party. But they don't have bosses, people who can control what other party members do. John Boehnor resigned as Speaker in part because he was exhausting all his time and effort in trying to get cooperation from the other members of his party, and at that only the couple hundred of them within the House of Representatives. If he had actually been the boss, and actually had some power over those members, it would have played out very differently.
In some parliamentary systems, if a member defies the party leader, that member can be drummed out of their seat. If most of the members defy the leader, the leader is replaced. But the party leaders in the US have much less ability to do that. They can sponsor a different candidate to run for the office in the next primary. But that primary challenger may lose. Particularly if the incumbent is a well known one.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Don't forget the guys with checkbooks. Like almost anything else, money talks. George Soros, for example, wields a lot of influence. Also the head of the National Committee, which is a money dispensing position. Collectively, the officers in Congress, the senior moneymen and the head of the NC are the "establishment". For a "Boss", you need to descend to local level politics.
Hillary Clinton's support is almost exclusively from this group. Bernie Sanders is almost exclusively from small donors. Rubio is primarily establishment funded. Cruz is predominantly alternatively funded. Trump is doing this on a shoestring.
J
Hillary Clinton's support is almost exclusively from this group. Bernie Sanders is almost exclusively from small donors. Rubio is primarily establishment funded. Cruz is predominantly alternatively funded. Trump is doing this on a shoestring.
J
Most third parties retain pre-1968 nominating systems, which usually involves a floor vote at a party convention for the nominee. Basically, the old school, smoke-filled backroom deal model. I think size has a lot to do with it, even with fairly "big" third parties like the Greens and Libertarians, there are often not enough voters regularly distributed throughout the states to make it worthwhile.
But it doesn't particularly matter because with third parties in the US, you are basically voting for the party platform and not the candidate. And ideally, the number of people voting for those platforms pull the major parties towards them to pick off third party voters.
In addition to what Cutlass and Sommer have said about the elected party members organizing in the House and Senate, both the Republicans and Democrats have national committees with leaders, such as the National Committees (RNC and DNC) and their constituent committees for the House, Senate, Governors, etc. However, these leaders occupy a more administrative role, recruiting candidates, hosting debates, and such, and often are not policy guys or the most compelling speakers (i.e. current RNC chair Reince Preibus).
epicivfreak
Prince
The American political system is a joke, and in need of some serious reforms, which of course, will never happen as long as we keep putting Democrats and Republicans in power - because the two big parties like it being stupid the way it is now.
At this point, we may as well just alternate between the two big parties automatically, every 5 years. When the Democrats are up for their 5 year term, anyone that wants to run on the D-side files their paperwork, we have a national election, and whoever wins the popular vote is the President. When the Republicans are up for their 5 year term, we do the same for the R-side. The dumb stuff we've got going on right now, like flipping coins to determine who wins a county, or cajoling people over to vote for your candidate by having better food than the other guy's supporters brought to the vote - I mean, seriously? WTH? Can we possibly make the process more stupid and pointless?
At this point, we may as well just alternate between the two big parties automatically, every 5 years. When the Democrats are up for their 5 year term, anyone that wants to run on the D-side files their paperwork, we have a national election, and whoever wins the popular vote is the President. When the Republicans are up for their 5 year term, we do the same for the R-side. The dumb stuff we've got going on right now, like flipping coins to determine who wins a county, or cajoling people over to vote for your candidate by having better food than the other guy's supporters brought to the vote - I mean, seriously? WTH? Can we possibly make the process more stupid and pointless?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I didn't know that there was another kind.
Come on. Tell us how you really feel.
J
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I think Clinton takes all but 2 states and Trump wins about 9 or 10 states on Super Tuesday.
I don't think endorsements will help Rubio that much at all.
I don't think endorsements will help Rubio that much at all.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
This is all very interesting, thanks for the context!
Similar threads
