American Democracy from the U.S. Election Rush Rush Rush~! In general, it is a combination of direct and indirect elections!

In general, it is a combination of direct and indirect elections.

How is the President of the United States elected? ------ by popular vote but not universal suffrage

The U.S. is still more than a year away from the 2008 election, and the primaries have not yet officially begun, but the campaigns of the democratic, *** and bipartisan contenders have been in full swing. However, the U.S. president is not elected by direct voter turnout, but depends on the results of the Electoral College.

Every four years, on the first Tuesday in November, more than 90 million voters in the United States vote for members of the Electoral College (Electoral College) (electors). Under the Electoral College system, voters in each state vote only to determine the state's electors and to realize that they know, that is, which candidate the members of the Electoral College vote for. The candidate who receives more than half of the votes cast by voters in a state receives all of the state's electoral votes. The electors vote again in mid-December for the President of the United States.

*The President is elected when he or she receives more than half of the electoral votes*

So how is the Electoral College formed, and ***how many electors are there? According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution and that 2nd Constitutional Amendment adopted in 1804, each state has a number of electors equal to the number of legislators elected in that state. The District of Columbia, where Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, is located, has a quota of 3 electors. There are currently 538 members of the U.S. Electoral College***. A presidential candidate is elected if he or she receives more than half of this number, that is, if he or she receives more than 270 electoral votes. If none of the candidates receives that number of votes, it is up to the votes of the members of the House of Representatives to decide.

The members of the House of Representatives from each state together have only one vote, and the candidate with more than half the votes is elected president. This has happened only twice in U.S. history. Once was the election of Thomas . Jefferson, elected in 1801, and John Quincy, elected in 1825. Quincy. Adams.

While electors should theoretically vote according to the will of the voters, the U.S. Constitution does not compel them to do so. In fact, few electors reverse their votes, and such "disloyal" votes rarely change the outcome of an election. Some states have laws that prohibit voter defections.

*Trailing in the popular vote and still winning the election*

So, has it ever happened in U.S. history that a presidential candidate has trailed in the popular vote and won the election? The answer is yes. So far, this has happened a total of 3 times***.

In 1876, the U.S.*** had 369 electoral votes. In that year's presidential election, *** and party candidate Rutherford. DeHayes received 4,036,298 votes in the popular vote, and Democratic candidate Samuel. Samuel Tilden received 4,305,090 votes in the popular vote. Hayes received fewer popular votes than Tilden, but received one more electoral vote, 185 to 184, and was thus elected president.

In 1888, the U.S.*** had 401 electoral votes. Benjamin Harrison, the *** and party presidential candidate. Harrison received 5,439,853 votes in the popular vote, as well as 233 electoral votes. The Democratic candidate, Grover Cleveland, received 5,543,309 votes in the popular vote, but only 168 electoral votes. As a result, Harrison won the general election.

In 2000, there were 538 U.S. electoral votes. The *** and party presidential candidate George W. Bush received 50,456,002 votes in the popular vote, fewer than the 50,999,897 votes of his Democratic rival in the race, Al Gore, but Bush was elected president as a result of winning 271 electoral votes.

Most American voters would naturally not be happy if a presidential candidate received fewer votes in the popular vote but was elected president because he won a majority of the electoral votes. So why did America's founding fathers create such a system?

U.S. Presidential Election Laws and Regulations: How to Conduct a U.S. Presidential Primary

After January 2008, a number of U.S. states will hold general election primaries one after another. During the primaries, presidential contenders within political parties will campaign in each state, and the candidate who receives the most delegate votes from his or her party will be nominated by the party convention and will serve as the party's sole presidential candidate in a general election showdown with the competing party's presidential nominee.

*Primary and Grassroots Caucus Primaries*

The Primary is the first stage of the U.S. presidential election, and its purpose is to screen presidential contenders within a political party prior to the November presidential election. Each state has a different process for screening presidential contenders, and most states use a "personal vote primary," in which people vote individually to select their favorite party's presidential contender.

At present, most U.S. states use this type of primary, but there are also a few states that use the "grassroots caucus" (Caucus), which is a collective meeting of party members to discuss and select a satisfactory party candidate.

Heather Gerken, a professor at Harvard Law School, said that the primary is a "grass-roots caucus". Heather Gerken, a professor at Harvard Law School, explained the difference between "individual voting primaries" and "grassroots caucus primaries". She said:

"An 'individual vote primary' is a lot like a general election, where people vote and mark their favorite candidate on a list of candidates, and the one with the most votes wins the primary. 'Grassroots caucus primaries' are more like congressional debates. Legislators engage in heated debate and look for compromises, and it's also like a town hall meeting, where everyone gathers to make a decision on a matter."

University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Nat. Nate Persily, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, noted that the key difference between the two forms is that one is a secret ballot and the other is a public vote.

Professor Persily said, "'Individual voting primaries' mean that people have to vote for a candidate, and no one knows who voted and for whom. However, a 'grassroots caucus primary' is more akin to a group decision, where people will stand up and publicly state that they are voting for a particular candidate, and then everyone breaks up into groups, and whichever candidate gets more votes in favor of that candidate in the group will have the most votes in favor of that candidate in the state where the 'grassroots caucus primary' is being held. ' the more delegate votes he gets in a particular precinct in the state where it is held."

So it seems that if you want more people to vote and keep their votes private, you can choose an "Individual Voting Primary," and if you want to have an open and more in-depth discussion of an issue, you can choose a "Grassroots Caucus Primary. "It is up to each state to decide which method to adopt. However, early in U.S. history, states generally elected party presidential candidates through "grassroots caucus primaries".

*Reforming the Voting Process*

Harvard Law School Professor Heather Gerken noted that because of the history of partisan elections, there has been an increase in the number of political parties. Gerken noted that states have begun to reform their voting procedures because of problems with vote rigging by political parties and other fraud. She said:

"There have been many instances of voting fraud in U.S. history, such as in the late 1800s and early 1900s, when political parties printed their own ballots, solicited votes by offering free booze and watched others vote. In order to stop this kind of fraud, states began to get involved in voting and regulating who could participate in primaries. Now, the states are playing an increasing role in this, but instead of having control over who people should vote for, it's having control over the voting process, when and how they vote, as well as being responsible for counting the ballots and so on."

*Primaries are not direct elections*

USC Law School professor Elizabeth. Elizabeth Garrett, a professor at the University of Southern California School of Law, said people are not voting directly for presidential contenders either way.

"In 'individual voting primaries' and 'grassroots caucus primaries,' for example, people who vote are not actually voting directly for the party's contender, and in primaries, people are not voting directly for the Democratic presidential contender," she said. vote for the Democratic Party's presidential contenders themselves, but instead vote for delegates to the Democratic Party's party convention, who then go there to select a presidential candidate."

University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Nat. Persily explained the practice further. He said, "Each state is given a certain number of delegates based on how many people it has, so a big state like California or New York gets a lot more delegate votes than a small state like Delaware or New Hampshire, and a predominantly agricultural state like Wyoming. The party presidential contenders have to compete for as many delegate votes as possible before the primaries are over, and whoever gets the most votes is the winner."

*State Campaign Laws*

The United States has a number of laws at the federal level that provide every citizen, regardless of race or gender, with equal voting rights. However, U.S. campaign laws are primarily at the state level, with each of the nation's 50 states having their own election regulations and voting methods, and the presidential election is no exception.

For example, there are hundreds of laws and regulations governing general election primaries. Some states, for example, allow cross-party voting in order to select a presidential candidate that the public will like, but others only allow members of their party to participate in the party primary to ensure that a presidential candidate is selected who is truly loyal to that party.

Elizabeth Garrett, a professor at the University of Southern California School of Law, described state practices. Garrett described the differences in state practices. She said:

"There are two kinds of 'individual voting primaries' in the United States. Take the Democratic primaries for example, some states have closed 'individual voting primaries' so only registered Democratic Party members can vote, others, such as my state of California, have semi-closed 'individual voting primaries' that allow both Democrats and Independents to vote. The 'grassroots caucus primary' is different because people have to come together to have a discussion and therefore take up more of an individual's time, and those who participate in such primaries are generally loyal members of the party."

*New Hampshire and Iowa lead the pack*

Also, states have their own laws about when to hold primaries. Traditionally, New Hampshire is the first state to hold an "Individual Voting Primary" and Iowa is the first to hold a "Grassroots Caucus Primary". The early stages of a primary are critical because the results generally reflect the strength of the party's candidates and often provide a strong impetus for later elections, so party presidential contenders try to win in the first state to hold a primary.

As for which states should hold their primaries first, it depends entirely on state laws; for example, New Hampshire passed a law stating that its primary had to be held a week before any of the other states held their primaries, so if any of the states passed a new law moving up their own primaries, New Hampshire's would automatically be moved up as well.

USC Law School professor Elizabeth. Garrett noted, "There is an ongoing dispute over which state should hold its primary first, because no state wants to start holding primaries after the race is already a foregone conclusion. *** and both the party and the Democrats have long held primaries and grassroots caucus primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa.

"There's a lot of debate about whether these two states are the best places to hold their primaries first because neither of them are considered representative of the U.S. Both are agricultural states and don't have a lot of minorities, so the delegates elected by the larger, more representative states may not be the same as the delegates elected by them. "

* What happens when states and political parties clash? *

Loyola Law School Professor Richard. Richard Hasen (R) noted that campaign rules within political parties and state campaign laws sometimes conflict. He said:

"States can set their own primary dates, but if a political party disagrees, it can reject the state's chosen date. For example, if California passes a law saying it will hold its primary before New Hampshire, the Democratic Party can say that if that happens, it won't recognize the results of California's primary because it has made a promise to New Hampshire to let it hold its primary first."

Above, we've covered some of the statutes governing state general election primaries, but of course each political party has its own campaign rules. If there is a conflict between them, how does U.S. law rule? According to U.S. court rulings, political parties have the final say on who participates in a primary election and what the primary election regulations are, meaning that state laws are subject to the party's campaign regulations. Next, I'm going to introduce you to a case before the U.S. Federal Supreme Court that involves campaign law.

*California Law Allows Cross-Party Primaries*

In 1996, California voters passed an "omnibus primary law" in a referendum. This law allows individual voters to participate in other parties' primaries, regardless of their party affiliation, and the candidate of the party that receives the most votes will receive his or her party's nomination for president.

Loyola Law School of California professor Richard. Hasson described the law. He said:

"California's law says that people who vote in primaries, regardless of their political affiliation, should be allowed to vote in primaries, for example, if I'm a Democrat I can vote in *** and party primaries, and I can change my participation in primaries without limitation on the number of times, for example, in the election of a governor I might decide to vote in *** and party primaries, and in the election of a senator I might decide to vote in *** and party primaries, and in the election of a president I might decide to vote in *** and party primaries. Whereas in the election of a Senator, I might decide to run in the Democratic primary."

*California's campaign law stirs controversy*

Proponents of "omnibus primaries" argue that the system promotes more people voting and elects more moderate candidates. But both the California Democratic Party and the **** and Party, which have traditionally barred non-members of their parties from participating in their parties' general election primaries, say allowing non-members of their parties to participate in the primaries would make it difficult for them to select candidates who better represent their parties' views.

As a result, several political parties, led by the Democrats, have filed separate lawsuits in court against the state of California on the grounds that California's primary law violates the freedom of association granted to them by the Constitution. But the representative of the sued parties, California Secretary of State Bill . Jones argued that "omnibus primaries" allow for a better representation of public opinion.

The district and appellate court ruled in favor of the California government on the grounds that the state's interests outweighed the rights of political parties. But the California Democratic Party is not convinced and continues to appeal.

*Court Rules Party Interests Prevail*

On June 26, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, by a 7-2 majority, that California's primary law violated the constitutional rights of political parties because the U.S. Federal Constitution ensures that the political parties themselves, and no one else, have the right to choose their party's candidates.

The ruling, on the one hand, struck down California's primary law and, on the other, implied that political parties, not states, should make the final decision on issues of campaign law, such as who can be allowed to run in party primaries and which state holds them first.

*NOMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES*

We mentioned at the outset that the candidate who receives the most delegate votes at the end of the general election primary will receive the party nomination. But Loyola Law School professor Richard . Hasson points out that the reality is that the first few state primaries came down to the wire, and some candidates saw that they were getting so few delegates and had no hope of getting out of the race that they dropped out of the race before the primaries were over.

Professor Hasson said, "In recent years, it has become commonplace to know who will be nominated as the party's sole presidential candidate, often before the party convention even begins, because there will be one candidate who receives such a large number of votes that voting by delegates at the convention is nothing more than fulfilling a due diligence obligation. "

After the primaries are held in each state, the political parties will hold party conventions, where the delegates will then vote to nominate their party's sole presidential candidate, said Elizabeth Garrett, a professor at the University of Southern California School of Law. Garrett noted that delegates are more flexible on voting issues.

"Some party candidates may drop out of the race before the general election, so delegates who would otherwise decide to vote for them have the flexibility to vote for other candidates if they are selected in the primary to attend the convention," she said. On top of that, there are some so-called 'superdelegates' who don't have to go through the primaries, but are decided by the party to go to the party convention. It is therefore a very flexible system. But, in general, one can get a slight idea of who will be nominated at the party convention just by the delegates who are chosen in the primaries."