A Canadian's Perspective On The American Election

[Year.Zero]

This isn't a thread about political opinion—it's one about political understanding.

Since over half the television content broadcast in Canada is American, naturally, much of our news sources (CNN, channel 33 right here) are covering the American presidential election.

But this is where it gets annoying.

Since our government is modeled after the British Parliamentary system, which is itself ridiculous enough in some cases, our understanding of the American voting and election process is very small.

To add to that, it's assumed by the American news agencies (because they broadcast for Americans, duh) that their viewers know what they're talking about, with some odd information tidbits here and there.

...but we don't. Not all of us Canadians, anyway.

Read only if you're interested in the Canadian system for comparison:

In Canadian politics, it's based on seats in parliament (to make it literal, imagine a huge room filled with chairs and people on each side sitting in them arguing). Which ever party leader gets the most votes wins. However, for a politician's party to have the most power, it must also have the most support. This support is determined by the seats, based on "ridings"—demographical areas (I think 100,000 people/representative?) that belong to a certain party by majority vote, which equate to a seat in parliament, which means they have more sway over bills being passed etc.

So you may be Prime Minister, but unless your party has the most seats, the opposition can put up a strong barricade to any of your decisions or proposals.

Based only on what I've heard from other people, I gather that it's very complex.

Oh, and why the hell is Chuck Norris all over the news?

 

[Blake]

Oh, and why the hell is Chuck Norris all over the news?

 

[Small_Fryz]

Thats just so funny.

 

[Solid Fro]

If we had Walker protecting our border, we wouldn't have this mess. He'd run them Illegals over with his Dodge Ram.

Walker and Rick Flair can't be wrong, right???

 

[Joey D]

So you expect just because CNN reaches Canadian homes they should explain everything about the American election when it's an American station to begin with? That makes little sense. If you don't want to hear about American news do not watch an American station.

 

[Danoff]

So what's the question? How the American political process works?

 

[Philly]

So what's the question? How the American political process works?

He literally asked how the election system works, but all of the other bits make it seem like he wants to know how our government works.

 

[Pupik]

So what's the question? How the American political process works?

If pro- means "for", and con- means "against", then:

 

[Venari]

Congress is full of ****?

 

[McLaren]

He literally asked how the election system works, but all of the other bits make it seem like he wants to know how our government works.

This link might help explain a little bit about the first part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election

As for the 2nd part, not even Americans know how the hell our govt. runs itself.

 

[Formula1Driver]

So you expect just because CNN reaches Canadian homes they should explain everything about the American election when it's an American station to begin with? That makes little sense. If you don't want to hear about American news do not watch an American station.

Actually the Canadian News Station that I watch does focus abit on the American election stuff and I sit there having no clue how it works, then again I didn't really know how the Canadian system worked until Year.Zero informed me. Thats the thing with us Canucks, only like 45% of our population actually vote for who is going to be our Prime Minister.

So in short, we have no clue what the hell is going on for everything.

And is that Mike Huckabee commercial serious? Reading off the quotes from that Chuck Norris factsite. BTW I have the same birthday as Chuck Norris.

 

[YSSMAN]

1) Parliamentary government actually makes a lot of sense. Government, in theory, is a better representation of how people are feeling. At least in the case of the UK, a no-confidence vote can be required, and consequently, a new prime minister an parliment can be formed in a matter of weeks.

I like that.

2) But I like the American system too. We're looking at just the President, right?

- Man (or woman) decides that they want to run for President, exploratory committee must be formed to see if that run is plausible.
- Official announcement of nomination occurs
- Candidates grow in number, debate, and we wait for the Caucasus and Primaries

* Caucasus are odd critters in politics where people get together in groups and vote instead of the more traditional Primary way of voting. I've had it explained to me several times, and the best I can say is that everyone sits in a room, raises their hand to vote, goes off to a corner, and then the smallest group is forced to join with another to make the results "clean and simple."

* Primaries, essentially, is just like voting for President with the exception that you're voting for your party's candidate, not the actual person who is officially running yet. Some states have closed primaries where you can only vote for your registered party, but in States like mine (Michigan), you can declare your party at the polling station, and vote from there.

After the Primaries are complete, usually citizens can have a good idea as to who is the most-feasible candidate on the national scale. Although candidate 'X' may have won more primaries total for a given party, candidate 'Y' may have won more of the important States. This is moved onto the conventions, where delegates gained in the primaries (candidates who win states get certain numbers of delegates from each one, delegates equaling the number of votes from the electoral college, I believe) vote as to which candidate they want to represent the party... And furthermore, conventions also set-up the party platform.

From there on, its usually a two-candidate race, one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats. Then the national vote is held on the first Tuesday of November, and then we have the miracle process of the electoral college.

*The electoral college is a number of votes given to a candidate based on the population of a given State. States like California and Florida carry far more weight by comparison to States like Montana or Rhode Island, and consequently, often can swing an election one way or another. Electoral college votes for a particular candidate, totaling in number of 538, must be assigned to a candidate with a majority vote (that over 270 votes). This does not take into account the popular vote, which often times can fall by the wayside in favor of the electoral college (see President Bush, 2000).

After a candidate gains 270 votes (or the majority), they are declared the winner, and take seat as President in the January of the following year.

3) Americans don't understand the Canadian system, and Canadians don't understand the American system. Its weird, I know, but I do like how our "Republic" works in the end...

===

I hope that worked well enough?

 

[Year.Zero]

So you expect just because CNN reaches Canadian homes they should explain everything about the American election when it's an American station to begin with? That makes little sense. If you don't want to hear about American news do not watch an American station.

Totally missed my point, but thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Year.Zero]

*The electoral college is a number of votes given to a candidate based on the population of a given State. States like California and Florida carry far more weight by comparison to States like Montana or Rhode Island, and consequently, often can swing an election one way or another. Electoral college votes for a particular candidate, totaling in number of 538, must be assigned to a candidate with a majority vote (that over 270 votes). This does not take into account the popular vote, which often times can fall by the wayside in favor of the electoral college (see President Bush, 2000).

After a candidate gains 270 votes (or the majority), they are declared the winner, and take seat as President in the January of the following year.


===

I hope that worked well enough?

Holy crap, I had no idea it took that long. That's like a year of voting?!

Canada's takes like...a few weeks? I didn't vote this year because, frankly, I hate the current forms of government available.

I'm not totally opposed to dictatorship or communism.

 

[Kylehnat]

It's a day of voting, not a year. Of course, there are "campaigns", which can run from 6 days (see: Colbert, Stephen), 6 months (see: Kerry, John), 60 years (see: Nader, Ralph), or 6000 millenia (see: LaRouche, Lyndon).

 

[YSSMAN]

Holy crap, I had no idea it took that long. That's like a year of voting?!

Essentially, yes. The candidates began sorting themselves out in the spring of 2007 for a vote that wouldn't happen until the fall of 2008. That is partially to blame for the fact that there isn't an incumbent, or an "implied candidate" such as a Vice President this time around, I believe the first time this has occurred since 1968 (I may be wrong).

As for the Voting, we vote on the first Tuesday of November of the given year (2008 being the case this time), and then the President-Elect will take office in January 2009.

 

[BayConRong]

lol i don't even know who most of the candidates are. i only know who Clinton is because her hubby runs for president too.

 

[YSSMAN]

You mean because he *was* President from 1993-2001.