Oi You Wacky Americans, Help Out An Aussie!

[Positively Kanyon 0]

Peoples,

 

I am having a hard time trying to understand your political system and the way it works. But for starters, I might let you in on how Aussie Politics work.

 

Yes we have the two party system, Liberal (John Howard) and Labour (Mark Latham) but there are also the Democrats, Nationals (who are in league with the Liberals) and the Greens. Now obviously our country is led by the Prime Minister, but there is also an "Opposition Leader" who offsets the PM.

 

Now am I to assume that the President of USA isn't opposed by an opposition leader, and that when the elections are coming up, the opposing party THEN decides who will be their Presidential elect, through something called "Primaries"

 

I don't understand!

[tommytomlin 0]

The main difference between our political system and the Yanks political system is that the President is elected seperately of the other houses of Parliament. In Australian and Canada and Britain and other Westminster styles of Government, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the majority in the lower house (our House of Reps). But in America, the President is elected directly by the people, seperate of Congress and the Senate. So you could have a Democratic Prez with a Republican Congress and a Democratic Senate, or any other combo.

 

The 'opposition leader' in the U.S would be the leading Congressman or Senator (I think) of the party not in power at a Presidential level. Like Tom Daschle, before he lost his spot, would have been the 'opposition leader' to Bush. He's not the alternative President, he's just the guy who leads the Democrats in the Houses.

 

And the Primaries are kind of like a mini-Presidential election, but only members of a certain party can vote. Each state sends a different amount of electors to the party's convention (depending on the size of the state), and the person with the majority of the electors gets the Presidential nomination.

 

 

As for the inevitable 'whose is better' - I like America's better. I don't like how our Prime Minister can often be decided by completely local issues in a few electorates. Our foreign and economic policy can be decided by whether some people in South Australia don't like what the local Liberal MP said about boat people. Having said that though, the very nature of Australia's system means there's more focus on actual policies and their impacts on electorates rather than the character politics bullshit that pervades American politics.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yes we have the two party system, Liberal (John Howard) and Labour (Mark Latham) but there are also the Democrats, Nationals (who are in league with the Liberals) and the Greens. Now obviously our country is led by the Prime Minister, but there is also an "Opposition Leader" who offsets the PM.

 

That's because we eat our Third-Parties.

 

Now am I to assume that the President of USA isn't opposed by an opposition leader

 

Yes and no. No in the case that there isn't an "opposition president" but usually the opposition (in this case they would be Democrats) party leaders of both branches to our Congress are generally regarded as the "leaders" of the "opposition party." Example: From '02-'04 the Democrats "opposition leaders" were the Minority Leader in the House of Representatives (Nancy Pelousi) and in the Senate (Tom Daschle). The only reason they're called "Minority Leaders" is because Democrats are the minority party for both of those branches of goverment.

 

Now granted there are other notable Democrat leaders, like Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy, but I would have considered Pelousi and Daschle the "leaders" of the Party, which shows, imo, why the Party is currently the suq.

 

and that when the elections are coming up, the opposing party THEN decides who will be their Presidential elect, through something called "Primaries"

 

Yes. And the President's political party also does the same thing, although most the time it's just a dog and pony show. The last time a president had trouble in the primaries was back in the 1960s.

 

Any more questions? Tommy had a good post, too, regarding this subject (never thought I'd say that..._

[MrRant 0]

suq.

Suck.

 

One more letter you lazy fucking hippie.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You done fleecing your customers, commie? Hey that almost sounds like "Comcast." I wonder why...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Third parties are a joke in America, first of all. None of them run on any kind of platform that most people would feel comfortable electing. They basically run to lose but show off their ideals and try to boost their numbers so that some day, they can sell out their agenda and become another big bloated party like everybody else.

 

Our Presidential elections have room for improvement, but doesn't need to be completely scrapped and rebuilt as some people think. It simply needs some tweaks so that the whole thing doesn't always come down to two or three states that somehow have an almost equal level of party voters. Not only does it make the people who live in those states seem way too much more important than everyone else, it means that the politicians only step out of those states to ask for money to keep bombarding those states with ads, so if you live out here you either have to pay a lot of attention to government or you're way less informed than the people who get flooded with too much information about who's who and what they stand for.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Oh, let's see what I can add...

 

The Presidency is determined by a national election, in which either candidate (we're leaving third parties out of this because, well, they never win) must win 270 electoral votes or more. Each of the 50 states has a number of electoral votes equal to the number of representatives in Congress. So, taking California for example, they have two Senators (which every state has) and 53 Representatives (based upon population). The winner of the popular vote in that state will receive that state's electoral votes.

 

Now, as for Congress, it is made up of two houses, the equal-representative Senate and the population-dictated House of Representatives. Senators receive a term of six years, while Representatives only have two. That's why every even numbered year there are major elections; one-third of the Senators are up for election, the House of Representatives is up for election, and mix in the Presidency every other election cycle, it turns into one giant ball of fun. The Senate, mind you, is the more powerful of the two legislative branches (at least Constitutionally).

 

We won't even go into the Supreme Court, because that means going through such things as Judicial Review, Marbury v. Madison, and all that fun.

 

Hope it was helpful.

 

--Ryan

[Styles 0]

Perhaps this Wikipedia article can give you a brief overview of our government setup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It simply needs some tweaks so that the whole thing doesn't always come down to two or three states that somehow have an almost equal level of party voters.

Oh quit yer bitchin' -- your state has the most electoral votes...

[Vern Gagne 0]

It should be noted that a group of people representing the Republican or Democratic canidate cast the electoral votes which determine which canidate wins the state.

[Positively Kanyon 0]

Thanks guys... Talk about confusing though!

 

On a sort of unrelated note... How do you think Tony Blair will do in the British elections? I've read that the British are more inclined to vote with their heads as apposed to a "patriotic" vote, which might see TB in a bit of trouble. The poor guy has been under seige constantly...

 

Any thoughts?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh quit yer bitchin' -- your state has the most electoral votes...

We still have less electoral votes per person than Wyoming. Each voter in Wyoming represents a good deal larger a percentage of an electoral vote than California.

 

Anyway, that's not really the problem, we just need to do the Colorado thing. Unfortuately, both parties will actually agree on something for once and oppose the idea if it's brought up. Neither side wants to lose their "safe" states.

[Guest BDC]

Oh quit yer bitchin' -- your state has the most electoral votes...

We still have less electoral votes per person than Wyoming. Each voter in Wyoming represents a good deal larger a percentage of an electoral vote than California.

 

Anyway, that's not really the problem, we just need to do the Colorado thing. Unfortuately, both parties will actually agree on something for once and oppose the idea if it's brought up. Neither side wants to lose their "safe" states.

I've wondered about this. Senators count as part of the EVs, but in the split system, where do those EVs go? To the person that gets the most EVs in the state or what?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh quit yer bitchin' -- your state has the most electoral votes...

We still have less electoral votes per person than Wyoming. Each voter in Wyoming represents a good deal larger a percentage of an electoral vote than California.

Yeah, but you have all those dirty Mexicans, so those don't count...