I think it's great you went out to vote!

Good for you! If nothing else this years elections have caused more people to get up and get involved.

good for you voting.

"A man who does not vote is not voiceless, but useless"* ~Thucydides

21st century trans. "If you didn't vote, you can't bitch."

*yeah, I know that's not a precise quote, but the spirit is there.

As a Pennsylvanian, I've never felt that my vote in the primaries mattered. Since I've been old enough to vote, I don't think Pennsylvania's primary made any decisions. Typically by the time our primary happens, everything's been decided and we end up "validating" rather than voting. And since you have to declare a party and I'm really a dyed-in-the-wool independent, I never voted in a primary before.

I'm a rather proud Pennsylvanian, so I'm glad that we're finally going to have a say in who gets to run for President.

The last time it was a US Presidential Election year I was living in Canada (for that year only).

I do not subscribe to newspapers.

I don't listen to the radio

I don't watch Television.

I was not employed at the time and my only social outlet that year was SCA events. I do not find it odd that the topic of another country's modern election was not raised at events wherin the focus is historical recreation.

I will admit that I don't pay much attention to the calendar, so didn't notice that it was a leap year. Thanks to the combination of all of the above, I didn't find out that year that it was an election year until after the results were announced! Needless to say, I did not do my civic duty that year.

This year I know that it is an election year because it has been mentioned in the journals of several of my friends. Thanks to some of them, who care about such topics and are willing to share their opinions, I even have a pretty good idea of who the candidates are. This year I have made arrangements to have an absentee ballot sent to me here in Australia; I shall not fail to do my civic duty again.

Thanks to the wonders of the internet, I am not only connecting with old friends far away and with people I've only met once (Hi Kass!), but I'm also, for the first time in my life, actually connecting in some small measure with things as diverse as popular culture and the political arena.

Good for you, Kareina! Brava!

It's difficult to keep track of elections when you're living on the other side of the world. But I expect this election is being very widely publicised indeed. I watch the BBC news and our election is all over the place.

Last week my little burg had a local election. 400 people showed up out of 10,000.

I count myself lucky to be in a nation where we can vote, even if the system is a little odd.

I was proud of my neighbourhood this morning. Maybe it's because I voted early, before most people had to leave for work, but the polling station was fairly crowded by the time I left. =)

I just know the newspaper coverages over here - and I am not familiar with the US voting system: Primary - is this just about which party (Democratic or Republican)is going to be voted by the state, or which candidate of a party (e.g. Mrs Clinton or Mr Obama)is to stand for election, and same thing for the Republican's party? (in our coverages it's just Mr McCain present, I must confess, I don't know his opponent)

Our primary system varies state to state, so please understand that I'm only answering for how they do things in Pennsylvania. Other states can be very different from how we do things.

Today is our Primary. This means that the Democrats vote for who they want to run for President as the Democratic candidate. Republicans vote for who they want to run for President as the Republican candidate. If you have not declared a party on your voters' registration, you cannot vote. Only party members can vote and they can only vote for their party. I was not part of a party until a couple of months ago. I declared Democrat because I wanted to vote for a candidate. This is why I've never voted before -- I was not part of a party. My husband is a Republican so he could only vote for the Republican candidate.

Basically, it's the day when the party members pick their candidate, not anything more.

Typically by the time the Pennsylvania primary happens, both parties have decided who their candidate is. So what we vote for doesn't really matter. The decision has usually been made before April in an election year. It's usually all over by "Super Tuesday" in February. But this year it's so close that we have a say. =)

Independent candidates can still run for President. And you don't have to vote for your party in the general election in November. This is just to pick the Democratic candidate, basically.

McCain's opponents in my state are Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, but they are unlikely to get the nomination. Pretty much McCain is going to be the Republican candidate.

Thank you for the explanation - so it is a party-intern meeting, not an official vote yet? Just to determine which one of the candidates will run in November? So it doesn't matter at present wheter the Democrat or the Republican gets more votes. Sounds rather odd, having such a huge coverage on the news then.

Yes, it is not Republicans against Democrats at all. It's just to determine who will run in November. It's almost like a separate election for each party. When I go into the voting booth, I hand them my registration that says "Democrat" and they disable the Republican side of the booth so I can only vote for Dems.

In November, I can vote for the Republican candidate if I want. But in the Primary, you can only vote for your party.

It's a big deal this year because it's so close between Obama and Clinton. That's not usual. Usually by this time in an election year, there is a clear candidate and the loser has had the good grace to bow out.

Thank you for this explanation, I've been wondering what the hell was going on with everyone so excited and the actual Presidential election not for ages yet.
It seems weird that all the "Primaries" happen so far apart, so that some don't matter... You'd think they'd all happen in the same week or something. It's always possible that if they went in reverse order someone else would look like they were going to come out on top. ie. if you go one way, Candidate A looks like they will win, so Candidate B defers to A, but if you go the other way, it could be the other way around. Maybe not so likely, but it seems kind of dodgy to do it this way and have even the chance of significantly different results.

To be honest with you, I have no idea why our primaries aren't all at the same time. And I don't think all states have primaries, just the highly populated ones.

It probably has something to do with how it was when the country was founded. And I'm sure I had to learn it in Civics class, but it bored me to tears.

I think all the states have primaries. Even Guam and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have primaries.

Correct.

See this footnoted Wikipedia entry for a brief overview of primaries.

The husband

I am so angry with *both* parties right now, that for the first time in my adult life, I'm seriously considering not voting.

There is literally NO ONE in this election that I feel comfortable, as a moderate military member, voting for.

Dad always says, "If there's no one to vote FOR, there's always someone to vote AGAINST." I'd rather you voted, but that's me.

I missed voting ONCE, for one national election. We had moved and hadn't registered. We got registered and recently the polling place moved literally across the street. For our primary I drove because it was raining.

Yeah, I know I can vote against someone, but God, just once, I'd love to be able to vote *for* someone. Call me crazy.

When I lived in New Hampshire voting in the primaries was immense fun because you still had the complete list of candidates in all their (often wacky) glory. This late in the game so many candidates have already fallen by the wayside, I can see how you would think that the PA primary rarely matters.

But huzzah for getting out and voting. I think it is an important part of our political process, and I'm ashamed that so many people don't bother to participate.

I was in the States for super sunday and the friends I was staying with are political junkies, (democrats of course)I found myself torn, Clinton is a woman and that should be a good thing, but then so was Thatcher and she was not a good thing. Then there is Obahma...fine retoric but we brits are suspisious of fine retoric, its just to easy to talk a good fight and realy it means nothing. Just look at Blair.
We look on with interest to see what will happen. Something needs to change over there because (and I know you wont mind me saying this) at the moment, it stinks.

Yeah. It stinks. I think before you go trying to "fix" other countries' problems, you have to fix what's wrong at home. And there's a whole lot wrong at home here.

Either that or make a lot of money and expatriate. =)

Yup that's exactly how we feel about the US, and its good to see that attitude becoming more prevalent over there. As for the ex pat idea, that's just what I did (minus the money) and guess what, from one corrupt shitty nanny state to another...sigh. We (all like minded cool people) are going to have to make shit loads of cash and buy an island somewhere warm and screw the rest of 'em.

Edited at 2008-04-22 03:10 pm (UTC)

Yeah. When I say "make a lot of money and expatriate", I mean "make A LOT of money and expatriate". And no screwing around either. I mean to go to a lovely island where there is no income tax, give up my US citizenship, and take care of myself without government intervention. And if you think that's impossible, I'll send you a list of heirs to huge fortunes that took it all off-shore, tore up their American passports, and live peacefully. Boy was the Treasury angry to lose that tax income!

I wouldn't mind a nanny state if they actually took care of people. But they don't. They just waste our tax money and nothing they do benefits us.

Oh its so possible.....well if you have a few hundred million....so....um.....not possible then.....sigh

yes the term nanny state is a bit misleading alright,...so no suprise there then lol.

You'd be proud of me, Fred. I have ambition. =)

In Oregon, everyone votes by mail (in an effort to promote voter turn out). Polling booths don't even exist any more! I'm not sure if it helps or not. Needless to say, I feel the same way that it's nice that our primary actually sorta, kinda matters (it's in early May)

This is the first time I am voting in a primary too. I'm sort of excited. I am gettting my diabled butt out this sfternoon to vote.

I'm just sooooooooo glad that the voting process has started again after six weeks of stasis!!! I hope that neither major party ever has such a long gap in its primary process again (regardless of whether a "presumptive nominee" has been found or not).

we will be voting by post like we alays do here its just a local election, if we had to vote in person we would not go as we have to leave for work at stupid o clock and dont get home till late

Even if an election is already decided, voting is good.

1) the defeated candidates voters don't show up, but the victor's do. This introduces a bias on the issues, e.g. 75% vote for X, therefore their health-care plan must be best; versus 51% voted for X, maybe we should look closer at Y's health-care plan.

2) state & local issues may be voted on during any voting session (at least in CA). Want to raise taxes, do it when fewer people vote.

I'm glad that you & Bob voted and feel that your vote counted this time.


Wilhelm vF

This introduces a bias on the issues, e.g. 75% vote for X, therefore their health-care plan must be best[.]

Heh. Ever notice that this situation usually is defined as "a clear mandate from the voters"?

Just goes to show that data is only what the interpreter wants it to mean. =)

Ye Husbande

I'm glad to hear you went to vote.
When I was in secondary school we had a teacher telling us how our political system works. He always said that if you didn't vote, you were wasting a right some people had fought hard for you to get. Especially women. And he emphasized that if you didn't vote, you had no right to whine, bitch, moan etc. about the government.

There's still a poltical party in the Netherlands that are so conservative right-wing Christian that they do not allow women to be elected. Women are allowed to vote, but they are not allowed in this party to be elected as a government official.
Needless to say, I always vote for a woman. But then we have a lot of choice in our political landscape. A lot.

Here in Wyoming, we vote for everything, even though our votes count for diddlysquat in national elections (thanks, Electoral College!!)
This year, I think I'm putting in a vote for anarchy. Sigh....

Hey, we even have a shot at mattering this time! (KY is 5-20)

Bless you for voting.

I was just telling my children the other day, we should really have all the states' primaries in ONE MONTH. Gee, the canadites wouldn't be able to be everywhere at once, but even the little states would have a chance to be heard.

Off to read the rest of the comments now. ;)

Having all the primaries at once - or at least in a reasonable time, like four to six weeks - makes perfectly logical sense. It would remove this annoying front-loading of the primary process, make the coverage a lot more entertaining, and give the candidates much more time to campaign for the general election.

Having a primary 'window' also doesn't contravene New Hampshire's stupid "we have to be first in the primaries" law - yes, it's written into NH law - or trample much on the principles of State's Rights. It does, however, tend to trample the less-exposed candidates, for the truncation of time means that much of the primary campaign will consist of paid advertisement. Lesser-known candidates will inevitably lose out to candidates with greater access to the party apparatus, which removes many useful and interesting voices from the overall debate. As the situation now stands, all candidates have the ability to visit, say, New Hampshire and Iowa in order to get their messages across. If they don't poll well in these early contests, they can either fine-tune their campaigns or bow out.

Am I making sense?

Bob

Actually I like the idea of regional primaries with each region getting to be "first" in turn. In the west I feel that rural western values are hardly every considered, and particularly water issues. There is a national plan right now that would totally screw over western water owners because it's based on applying an eastern standard that is inappropriate in the arid west. If we in the west had the occasional chance to be "first" in the primaries perhaps our issues would get some airtime at least.

Oogie

Wot ho Kass, could you gimme a clue as to whats going on.....This is two people from the same side right?
The US electoral system is a mystery to me but then so many things are.....I blame..............Nah I's just stupid.

Grymm/Marc

Hi there Marc! Good to hear from you.

Yes, this is two people from the same side. Let me explain: You see, we don't have a Parliamentary system like you do. We vote on a President completely separately from Congress. So it is very possible (and likely) to have a Republican President with a Democrat Congress (which is what I think we have right now -- or at least we did for a while). Congress gets voted on every two years and Presidents every four (but most stay in eight -- that's the maximum).

The Primary on Tuesday was part of the narrowing-down process. The party hasn't decided who will run in November, so the States are voting on it.

And we still don't know because the one who's behind won't drop out like she should.

Cheers for that my lovely =o) VERY different to our system....The Party chooses the leader and the people vote on the party, campaigning is(technically) limited to the 6week period leading up to a general election.
Although the more I look at politics and politicians the more I tend to agree with the late (and much missed) writer Douglas Adams. To paraphrase from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series....Those who actively seek power should be automatically denighed it. Or possibly thats just me being a grumpy old git, answers on a post card

Doug Adams was not wrong.