yoda Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 BTW the US has many parties, but only those polling decent numbers are invited for the debate. Typically in the US presidential system, only the Republicans and Democrats are invited since they are always the top 2. In 1992, since Ross Perot was polling big numbers, he was also invited as the 3rd party candidate to debate with Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr.
Mariyam Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 if we had live televised debates between each party's projected PM/ party leader..things would be so much more different instead of ignorant masses casting their votes for a bag of rice or TV... Huh? You really think us Indian voters are as stupid as you American voters. You think that we'll short sell our valuable vote to some politico based on his/her random ranting about the economy/religion/ecosystem/foreign policy? We're a mature democracy. We would simply watch the debates, then animatedly discuss the points over dinner with friends/family and in the end vote for the fellow who gives us that bag of rice or TV. Debates and discussions would only work in countries where the vast majority of the people are naive and simpletons extraordinaire, a la the USA/UK.
ViruRulez Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Dude, that is to select the person who is eligible to run in the official election. The Indian equivalent is to exchange boxes of cash or lick Sonia's feet to get a seat to run in the election. :giggle: BTW, such primaries are held for every seat - Senate, House and the Presidency. It essentially allows anyone to challenge their own party's preferred nominee for the seat. It doesn't mean you can out muscle them financially or otherwise, just that you at least have a chance to stand without having to lick someone's boots or give loads of cash to even be allowed to stand. It gives a chance to compete but then is it a fair chance? I don't think so. The candidate who has got the frontrunner choice by the party will get a bulk of the votes and all the billionaires pouring money on his Super PAC. And the US election seems more like a media and corporate election where they are making or destroying candidates as per their choice. Ron Paul for example has been pulled down by the US media and corporates from the start. I do not agree with all he says but then if the election is fair then he must also have been given some screen space comparable to other candidates. In India, such a candidate would have become a hero of the media like Anna sort of stuff but he was ridiculed and kicked out of reckoning by the media even before he started. Abbe viru 2 minute tv dekh ke sab samajh gaya tu ? Mujhe 6 saal ho gaye yahaan, still don't understand a lot of details of caucuses and delegate selection Sample this: Primaries with all or nothing (if you win, you take all delegates) Open primaries where people from other party can vote (i.e. democrats voting in repub primaries) Primaries with proportional delegates Caucuses Non-binding Caucuses And this is just for nomination :wall: Not 2 minutes but for a couple of months or so. A bit of Ron Paul supporter though do not agree to some of his ideas too. So, understood the process somewhat easily and a bit better as he and his campaign explains everything a bit too much in detail. A constitutionalist can explain better than the media or other candidates. :giggle: Your understanding is partial at best. The biggest difference between the system in the US and Indian system is that anyone CAN stand in the primaries and try to get nominated. Whether you can win the nomination or not is up to you and there have been many instances of people with limited finances, pull/push who have gotten the nomination. How do you think a guy like Obama even became the nominee of his own party in 2008? You think he was the chosen one by his party as opposed to a Hillary Clinton? In fact he had hardly been in the US Senate for a full term before he tried to get his party's nomination. As they say, only in America... Obama was the frontrunner with the most funding and the party backing. So, do not agree that his election was a surprise. Having said that, I find Obama to be more sensible than most of the Republican candidates. He is diplomatic yet speaks wisely. To understand his words, you always need to read between his lips. He keeps all sides open unlike Republicans who seems to be living in some sort of weird world. Only Ron Paul and Romney are the two somewhat sensible Republican candidates. The others are bat ass crazy. I would have really liked to see how Gingrich builds a colony on the moon in a dying economy which has crossed national debt of 100% of GDP and that too within 4 years. And Santorum is one of the craziest guys I have seen in US. :P
Recommended Posts