Susan's Place Transgender Resources

USA politics seem very complicated, and I must admit frightening.

The fright is that the USA has more than a major impact on local world politics and some comments from people who are candidates for (I'm not sure what) are very disturbing.

Can someone explain the system?

There are people who, in most countries, would only be popular in low grade movies or TV shows who seem to be the next president.

I'm quite fearful. I don't think I am alone.

Please sensible comment only.

Our system is geared to give every citizen (almost) the opportunity to run for President if they wish. Do they all make suitable, reasonable leaders? No. By and large, the unsuitable candidates get nowhere and don't end up on the ballot. Hope this helps.

Hugs, Devlyn

What kind of information are you looking for? Are you wanting to know the basics of American civics? A rundown of the current election and it's contenders? Our electoral process in general?

I'm happy to help, but like you said, it's a complex system and I don't want to run off on an unhelpful tangent.

Actually it's kind of scary to some of us, too.

The real whackos usually implode before they are taken too seriously, by making some comment the press pounces on and won't let go of, or by being pushed aside by their party's national organization.

However, Trump has his own money, and seems to have tapped a vein of support that seriously want him to act crazy and "shake things up". I think they are betting he is "crazy like a fox", but I'm not sure about the fox part. ;)

This is going to be a very weird election...

First of all, even US citizens think we are a democracy.  We are not.  In a democracy, citizens vote directly on issues (ancient Athens).  The US is a republic where we elect people to represent us in voting on issues.  We do this on the city, county, state and national levels.  OK, nothing you don't already know because your government is pretty similar just with different names for different jobs.  Our problem is PACs and Super PACs.  Political Action Committees can be formed by almost anybody for a specific candidate but can only accept individual donations with a max of $5000.  Super PACS are basically the same except they can accept unlimited donations from corporations, unions and individuals anonymously.   These committees cannot contribute directly to a candidate but they can create ads for a candidate or ads slamming another candidate sometimes playing fast and loose with the truth.  So PACs and Super Pacs can flood the airwaves with commercials , usually in the region where a caucus or a primary is being held.  This gets the candidates name out to people which is important.  It's a sad fact that some US citizens, even though they vote, don't know that much about the issues.  So what happens, if they don't know the candidates or their stance on issues, they vote name recognition.  "Oh, I've seen more of his/her/their ads on TV so I'll vote for him/her/them."  If they don't even know a name, generally they will vote for the first name on the list.

In the current election, it has been said the Koch Brothers through their Super PAC are basically trying to buy the election for whoever the Republican nominee is.  Even the Republican party is worried they are trying to take over the party.  So we're getting some of the worst possible choices in the upcoming election on the GOP (Republican) side of things.

You think it's frightening to you?  I studied political science and psychology in college.  It's scaring me to death!!!!

I understand very well how our government is supposed to work and also understand that it's all a sham.  Corporations and billionaires own the politicians whose only interest is in getting reelected. 

One thing this election cycle has revealed very clearly is that America's self appointed chosen of God, i.e. The right wing evangelicals, are more than willing to sell their souls to the devil in their pursuit of political power.  What was before hidden is now proudly paraded about for all to see.


Sapere Aude

I understand that anyone can run, and that is as it should be.  The big question is how someone like Donald Trump can get the support that he apparently has.

And the sad truth, in my outsider's opinion, is that he does in fact represent the viewpoint of a large segment, possibly a majority, of American society.  He certainly represents a majority of corporate interests, and, as others have said, their influence is significant.

US politics anymore boils down to those who can bring in the most money and get the message they want you to hear out to you. It's very everyone for themselves geared and if some get hurt in the process well then they do. We like to hope the best person gets the job, but in the end it becomes the candidate we can stand the most we vote for. Hugs
Mariah

One thing that is incomprehensible to most of the world is our dysfunctional election system.  Political campaigns in Britain or Canada last a matter of a few weeks.  In the United States it goes on and on and on.  We elect a president for a four-year term.  The very next day, candidates start positioning themselves for the next election.

We also have a dysfunctional legislative mechanism.  In parliamentary systems, the winning party forms the government.  And since its followers have a majority in parliament, the government has the votes to be able to enact its program.  In the United States, congress members and senators are elected independently, often from highly gerrymandered, unrepresentative districts, while the president is elected by a nationwide vote.  This can lead to legislative deadlock like we have right now, where congress refuses to enact any part of the president's program, and the president vetoes the stupid proposals passed by the reactionary congress.

And don't even get me started about the presidential election system.  There's a crazy "electoral college" mechanism here that favors small rural states over large urban ones.  The result is that a vote cast for a presidential candidate in Wyoming (a conservative rural state with a tiny population) counts almost three times as much as a vote cast in California (the most populous state, and one of the most progressive).

An example of the baneful results:  In 2000, the Democratic candidate Al Gore actually won the popular vote nationwide by over half a million votes.  But through the electoral college mechanism, the Republican candidate George W. Bush was declared the winner.  Disaster ensued.

In short, our political/electoral system is seriously messed up.  Americans don't understand that, though.  We Americans endlessly tell ourselves that this form of government is the best in the world, that it's perfect, that everyone in the rest of the world envies us.  We Americans have a limitless capacity to delude ourselves about this.

 :police:
Okay folks. Lets please avoid bashing. Anymore bashing and I will lock this thread. Please keep in mind TOS 10. Thank You
Mariah

yes, Democracy  can be a very scary process theoretically 1 person can decide the path of a nation

Basically what we are entering into right now is the primary election season. Each state holds a primary election or caucus where people go out and vote for which candidate in a particular party they want to receive the party nomination (by means of selecting the delegates that will vote for them at the national conventions). You can only vote for one party, and only one candidate per party can receive the nomination to make it on the presidential ballot this November. That's why there's so many news pieces and sound bites right now - all of the candidates want to stay top of mind while people are actively voting. This is essentially what they've been campaigning for the whole time.

I would not be too concerned about it until Super Tuesday results come back in March. That is the day that many states hold their primary election, and the single day that the most delegates can be won. It will be a good indicator of who the nominees will be.

I won't speak about any candidates in particular, but IMO the president is not as big a deal as we make it out to be. The way our government is set up, a lot of power for things that we care about (marriage laws, discrimination laws, legal recognition and protection, healthcare, etc.) fall under the dominion of individual states. Local and state elections are infinitely more important in impacting our day to day lives.

The only big issue coming up that makes this election interesting is that we have several old Supreme Court justices who will likely need to be replaced within the next 4-8 years. They play a huge part in generating case law and standards of Constitutional interpretation. The president makes those nominations, and they generally make appointments within their own party. Elect a conservative president, get a conservative justice. They don't always vote the party line (Roberts upholding Obamacare), but generally they do. But it'll be interesting for sure. Who knows, maybe they'll outlive the next president and it'll be a non-issue.

Don't get scared yet! Wait a month. Then we can all be scared together.

I suggest we consider that the USA has devolved into an oligarchy.  I am a politician at a very rural local level but an effective campaign run for county commissioner or city council will still cost tens of thousands here.  It can be a big and costly campaign effort to run for school board in larger towns and cities.  Politicians are at the bottom of the barrel in social approval ratings, near used car salesmen.  Our trust is shaken.  Our bloated military spending dwarfs the next 10 nations on earth because we are fearful.  We fear what we do not understand and spending for education is a race to the bottom for our 50 States.

In a climate of fear people may turn to the strong man with simple answers and tough guy talk.  People here do not fully appreciate history or what Mussolini said about fascism; "fascism is like corporatism."   The huge and growing disparity between the richest families in the USA and those at the other end is what Senator Bernie Sanders points out daily.  Since we do not understand socialism the mere word seems scary.  We have several millionaires and billionaires running for Prez.  This is definitely not government of the people, by the people. 

Yes, we really do need a peaceful political revolution.  The antidote to fear is an educated and engaged citizenry that recognizes our countless opportunities to simply BE the government.  I will be lobbying in DC soon but will recall the bumper sticker from our hippy peace and love era "think globally, act locally"  Its not too late to make a difference.

Hippies are my favorite people besides transgender people.

Quote from: stephaniec on January 29, 2016, 05:25:52 PM
Hippies are my favorite people besides transgender people.

I did make it to California a few times but seemed to have missed out on the "free love" deal ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Tessa James on January 29, 2016, 05:32:00 PM
I did make it to California a few times but seemed to have missed out on the "free love" deal ;D ;D ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bch1_Ep5M1s

If you're going to San Francisco,
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair . . .
-1967

My word that song takes me back, - now I really am showing my age ;)

As a New Zealander trying to make sense of what is happening in US politics I find it nothing short of confusing.  On one hand the Republicans seem to want deny human rights to minorities, dismantle any program that's in place to aid low income families and individuals, do away with any form of public health care, close US borders to refugees and carpet bomb the Middle East.

On the other hand I'm hearing a lot about Bernie Sanders who to my ears at least is talking a great deal of commonsense.  Democratic Socialism is something which is very familiar to us Kiwis and it's not scary in the slightest.  It certainly isn't communism as I'm hearing some Republicans labeling it.  Our National party (Tories) would like to be a clone of the Republican Party if they could get away with it, but fortunately our parliamentary system seems to hold most of their stupidity in check.

I'm not saying everything is sunny and perfect here in NZ, but it is a great relief to me as someone who lives with chronic illness that I can access primary medical care at little cost and if I need to go to hospital it doesn't cost me anything.  And yes I know I actually pay for it through my taxes, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
The other thing I've been able to do for the past 25 years is go to the ladies restroom to pee without anybody being worried about it in the slightest.  So please forgive me if I find the US political system incomprehensible and totally baffling.

The study that the New Yorker article "Is America an Oligarchy?" (http://www.newyorker.com/rational-irrationality/is-america-an-oligarchy) references is no big surprise, but it does contain some interesting findings and more-or-less formalises what everyone already suspects. In fact, the state of play in US politics has likely decayed even further since the article was released and has fared considerably worse since the period from which the survey data was captured.


To really discover what happened to the USA, check out the prophetic documentary, Idiocracy.

(https://goplifer.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/camacho.png)

Lady Smith,

  I would be confused especially if I was used to a parliamentary type of government with a coalition of parties that elects a Prime Minister. We have no kind of coalition here. We have up to 3 parties vying for power in the executive and legislative branches. Our elections are a electoral college for president and direct for each senator and representative.
  Each of the 50 states get 2 electoral votes for the 2 senators each state gets. Plus a number of representatives depending on the population that state has from the last census count and the population number per representative decided by congress. Wyoming gets 3 votes as California gets 55. Washington DC gets 3 votes, even though they have no representatives in congress. Currently a majority 270 votes are needed to elect a president. The winner in most states gets all of the electoral votes that state has in the first poll held a month later. If that's not a strict majority, that falls to the House, that fails, that to the Senate. We didn't get that far as yet, even though there were a few elections with 3 major candidates. There were 4 occasions that the president elected by the College that that candidate did not receive the most of the popular vote. Remember George W. Bush in 2000 with the hanging chads? It can get nasty!

Joelene

I actually think I can explain Trump's popularity, but it boils down to a "lesser evil" theory.  Aside from any personal failings other candidates may have individually or collectively, there's a very anti-establishment mood and--say what you want about Trump--he's about as anti-establishment as you can get.  By most measures, the last two administrations have produced the two worst economic recoveries since the Great Depression, and especially following the dot com boom and cold war peace dividend of the 90s they've been very bitter pills indeed which has helped quite a few folks decide the status quo isn't a good idea.     

Something which I believe voters in parliamentary systems don't really grasp is all the implications of the two-party system.  You guys can decide that, say, environmentalism is the most important issue for you, vote accordingly, and know that your representatives will work themselves into a coalition as they think best.  In the U.S., we do have "single-issue voters" but our districts create more of a "winner take all" situation with votes than you often see in a parliamentary system, and we often have to swallow views wildly at variance of our own on all sorts of social, economic, or whatever based on how we prioritize things individually.  Our parties mean our coalitions are basically pre-packaged, which really decreases the power of any contingent outside the dominant one.   

Also, something else which is fairly unique about the American system is that our government is actually designed to do as little as possible.  Most of you have Prime Ministers there to execute the will of the legislative branch, we have a system of "checks and balances" designed to keep them playing off against each other, with the Supreme Court as another player to put the brakes on both of them.  Gridlock isn't a bug, it's a design feature. 

We've got some other problems, like the same states always leading the primaries, and I think the role of money in elections is overblown (the Chamber of Commerce routinely proves it's definitely huge, while Jeb Bush has spent most of the last year proving you can be utterly irrelevant despite having all the money), but I think those are the issues most alien to members of other democracies/republics. 

Trump as anti-establishmentarian? Lol. Which social, political, and/or economic conventions is trump railing against?

Quote from: Serverlan on January 31, 2016, 02:32:13 AM
Trump as anti-establishmentarian? Lol. Which social, political, and/or economic conventions is trump railing against?

Rational thought and common sense.

Quote from: Elis on January 31, 2016, 04:24:53 AM
Rational thought and common sense.

Lol

Quote from: Serverlan on January 31, 2016, 04:32:35 AM

Lol

Based on American budgetary history, I'd actually suggest that's one of the things he has in common with the establishment. 

But consider his reaction to Hillary's playing the gender card on him.  Calling her out on attacking all her husband's accusers was, to borrow Tucker Carlson's description of the Trump MO, "shocking, vulgar, and correct."  None of those things define your usual politician.  Consider that he is running as a conservative and doesn't really have any of what most conservatives would consider conservative bona fides.  He's been for most of the things conservatives are against at some point, it's almost painful to watch him respond to bible questions, and it was generally easy to write off a presidential run as a publicity stunt for quite a while in the process.  Particularly as he didn't seem to have a plan for much of anything as most of us define the word.  Heck, I'm not entirely sure his position on any issue whatsoever is long-standing.     

But the establishment hates him.  They sneer at him, belittle him, and mock his lack of experience.  Whether or not he deserves that is beside the point, the point is that the base of the American right believes that's the way the establishment views them.  The Republican base has, for example, a definite "limited government" leaning which would prefer the government just leave them alone as much as possible.  They'd be fairly happy if the government ran a military, dealt with other governments, and did some law enforcement with a heavy emphasis on border security...and nothing else.  Put aside whether they're right or wrong, and the same with the "social conservatives" or any other flavor of their base, and just worry about how the GOP politicians promise all these things to the base when campaigning:  Limited government, a fight against abortion and GLBT rights, an end to foreign aid, and so forth.  Then what happens when these elected representatives get to Washington?  They take the Chamber of Commerce's money, have a few dinners with Grover Norquist, get into an urban, sophisticated setting with cosmopolitan people...and decide that what's important is not rocking the boat, playing nice with the power and money brokers, and the closest they come to actually acting on their pledge to the limited government crowd is to cut taxes on the wealthy and essentially try to demonstrate that they can run a welfare state better than the left and we wind up with Medicare Part D or some such.  You don't have to agree with any of the GOP base's positions to see why they feel disenfranchised by their representatives, and are willing to overlook all of Trump's flaws for the sheer joy of shooting the bird at the guys they feel betrayed them.  And the more the establishment devotes issues of National Review to every reason Donald Trump is unacceptable to them, or Karl Rove editorializes on Trump's shortcomings, the more the base loves the guy.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

And it's true that his immense personal wealth and history of moving among the political and financial elite make him part of an establishment, but not the hated GOP establishment (any more than the DNC).  Also, as one commentator put it, it's one thing for those of us on the outside to peer through the glass window at this establishment.  It's something else for a guy on the inside to throw a chair through that glass window.  It's the Teddy Roosevelt path to populism by a rich guy.  For a base which had Romney, McCain, Bush, and Dole rammed down their throats by the GOP power brokers who also saddled them with Boehner--and none of those guys are popular with the GOP base--then got to watch Hastert, Cunningham, Craig, and so forth arrested for things which really, really bother the base, they're mad enough that winning elections matters less to them than making a point.           

And that doesn't even involve both parties having an economic train wreck for the last 16 years making everybody question the genuine politicians.  Or that it's hardly limited to the right, as Bernie Sanders' insurgency proves.  Recent polling put the number of Americans who think the problem is politicians' inability to compromise at 50%, while 40% think the problem is politicians' inability to stand by their principles.  That means pretty much anybody with a political track record is going to tick off ~half the population no matter what he does.  And Trump, like the last guy to get elected President, doesn't really have much of a political track record.  It's unfortunate that this is a political asset rather than a liability, but that's the world we live in.       

TL;DR version:  Worrying about Trump demonstrating his anti-establishment credibility is looking at it backwards.  The important part is that the GOP establishment is anti-Trump, and that's good enough for the base who really are anti-establishment. 

OK, it sounds like OP wants to know the intricacies of how presidents are chosen in the U.S. So the first thing is that the legal requirements are that a person must be a natural-born citizen (the meaning of "natural-born" has never been fully elucidated by the courts) be at least 35 years old and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. That's the technical qualification for someone to be president. The political process and practical aspects are a little more complicated. The U.S. has a two-party political system. we have 3rd parties, but 3rd parties candidates are not elected for office very often and tend to be more ideological than either of the two parties. 3rd parties are a way that people sometimes express grievances with the political system when they aren't doing well, act as a "spoiler" in elections, or act as an ideological influence on the two parties. Additionally, there are caucuses which can act as a party within a party as a way to support a specific interest or version of party ideology.

One thing you have to keep in mind though is that a legal, highly formal system of bribery permeates the entire political process. This can make or break a candidate and determines who's interest they act in when there is a conflict of interest between the political donor class and the "average citizen." Even in the rare instances when the donor class loses a political battle, the loss will usually be mitigated in some way.

Back to the selection process. People who want to be president must get the support of party leadership, already have some money, get the approval of donors (which means getting donations), and get endorsements from various ideologues and king-makers, and various media outlets. This enables the candidates to run campaigns with expensive advertising and non-stop visits to different areas around the nation, particularly states that vote early in the primaries. The campaigns try to get voters registered in the candidates respective parties  to vote for them in the primary elections. The primaries are intra-party elections where voters who are party members (one becomes a party member simply by checking a box on the voter registration from) select the candidate that the entire party will stand behind and get party resources for the general election. However, the U.S. has low voter turnout in general elections and even lower turnout for primaries, meaning that people who vote in primaries are often strongly ideologically committed to a certain political outlook, sometimes to the point of extremism. The candidates must appeal to these voters by taking strongly ideological positions (reality, practicality, and legality be damned), stay in the good graces of party leaders, and receive continued support from the donor class (which has different priorities than the voters) to win the primary and receive continued support after the primary.

The timeline to U.S. elections goes something like this. Shortly after a presidential election, the losing party will begin quiet discussions about the next election and people who want to run will begin testing the waters to see if they have a chance, this intensifies after the midterm elections and people who want to run will indicate that they are considering a presidential run. From that point to a few months before primary season, lack of financial support, lack of voter interest, and scandal will narrow the field down to a few candidates. Right now we are at primary season, which starts this Tuesday and runs until June  (although a candidate emerges much sooner than that). After primary season, the delegates selected for the candidates in the primary elections will vote at the party's political convention shortly after primary season ends.

The winning candidates are now in the general election season. To win the general election, the candidates must appeal to a wider segment of the voting population, receive continued financial support, and still appeal to the party. More specifically, the candidates must persuade independents, low turn-out voters, and people not yet registered to vote for them in the general election. This is most important in swing states, these are states with a similar number of Democrat and Republican voters, and have a history of voting for both Republican and Democratic candidate over the last couple decades or where a candidate doesn't receive an overwhelming percentage of the vote. These are Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Nevada. Because most states are safe for a certain party, and only a handful of states are not safe for either party, a relatively small percentage of the population effectively decides the outcome of an election. In the election, people really vote for electors, who make up the electoral college, which actually votes for the president. Except for Maine and Nebraska, it is a winner-take-all system in each state.

Sometimes candidates can bypass the donor class and become serious contenders if they are self-funding or raise many small donations. These candidates run on a platform of economic, political, or cultural reform and come in both reactionary and progressive flavors and may or may not be members of either party and advocate for positions that are in conflict with the wishes of the donor class. This is basically the political phenomena of Trump and Sanders. These voters tend to believe the entire political system is corrupt and they have gotten a raw deal as a result of unholy alliances between far-away business, government, and sometimes cultural institutions. However progressives and reactionaries are different on what they see as the exact nature of the problem and what the solution to those problems are.   

Yes, our political system is somewhat complicated and it favors candidates who are not necessarily the most qualified.

I believe the real problem is that we have uneducated voters. They vote for their religious ideals or the five second sound bite. Many actually think that the president makes policy and he or potentially she is the one responsible for the health of the country.

Very few of our population knows anything about foreign issues and conflicts much less laws under consideration by our Congress or Supreme Court.

We simply aren't interested. We follow inane memes on FaceBook and the incessant ads on television (I can't watch standard broadcast TV anymore) which debase issues or candidates without providing real substance. We follow like sheep based on ideology of our families or location where we live or by our minority/majority status or....  We vote our candidates into office on hate issues. Abortion, immigration, GLBT rights, birth control, welfare and others. We don't consider the ramifications of how our politicians will vote on important issues that will affect the nation's economy and our world standing. The bottom line is we just don't care enough to read about these issues or seek out information on candidates.

We are a lazy, selfish, self privileged people. We believe we are the most powerful and righteous country on Earth. Most of us believe that to be by God's decree.

That's my short version. I could go on for hours. I must point out that some of the most politically educated people are on THIS site. It's unfortunate that the rest of the populace can't or won't understand half of what has been presented so far.

Cindi