Laurent Kretz

This is pretty much my understanding of the democratic Iowa-caucuses … so I was amused to read this blurb in today’s NYC Metro:

“The Democrats are assigned to precinct meeting places — which can include private residences of biased boosters. There they engage in heated debates in the “spirit of the old town hall.” Supporters must physically plant themselves in clusters by signs for the candidates to be tallied. Paid campaigners are employed to sway voters. Oftentimes, people are won over with cookies and other delectable treats.”
”Caucus: More than a dirty-sounding word” - Metro New York, Jan 3rd 2008 by Jared Neumark

I am French, and in my country, a presidential election is quite simple: the entire (registered and allowed) population is invited to vote on a defined day for the presented candidates. A candidate is elected given the number of votes he gets - what is called the “popular vote” in the US. If none of the candidates gets a majority on the first round, there is a second round with the two leading candidates. Boom, period.

Trying to understand how the US Presidential election works is quite a headache. It might be obvious for you, my american friends, but it seems very complicated (and not so democratic) for a foreigner like me.

You have to understand or realize, amongst other things, …..  

• the difference between a primary and a causus, and even a democratic caucus and a republican caucus, 
• what the electorial college is, and that the number of presidential electors per state is defined equally to the state’s number of senators (2) and representatives (variable) in the US Congress (Senate + House of Reps),
• that the number of seats at the House of Representatives is proportional to the population of the state, but reviewed every 10 years, so not necessarily representing the population of that state at the time of the election,
• that, on the election day, you vote for a Presidential Elector who “pledged” on voting for the candidate a voter has chosen,
• that there are “Faithless Electors”, i.e. Presidential Electors who you elected to vote for candidate X but eventually vote for candidate Y,
• that a Presidential Elector is not bound by law to vote for the candidate he pledged to elect,
• that, above all those mechanisms, each state has its own legal rules and laws for the elections, giving an infinite number of exceptions … !

And I might be wrong, so feel free to comment and correct !

I am for sure exagerating a little, and this all can be sum up in the difference between a direct election and an indirect election. We “indirectly” elect our Senate in France, for instance.

However, my first reaction is that the mechanism in the US seems very complex, not representative of the reality of the population opinions, subject to many exceptions and various interpretation of law. I agree that indirect elections have a valid raison d’être in a democracy, but don’t understand that the president (and leader of the state, leader of the free world, leader of the most powerful nation in the world, leader of the worldwide biggest army, …) is not chosen by his or her people.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!