Democrats will be Democrats

Greg,

I have to ask, why does the US persist in this very off way of electing presidents ? Every other country I know that has presidential elections has all the candidates stand in the same election and the public then votes. If any candidate gets more than 50% they will, if no one does then there is a second round between to top two candidates.

Seems to me to be an simpler, and quicker, system.

Matt:

Let me ask you ... how do the candidates that stand in the election in any particular country get to the point where they stand in the election?

We are not at the moment in the process of electing a president. The election process has not begun yet. there are no candidates for US president at this time.

The parties are simply working out whom they will put forth. That process happens in other countries as well. Here, in the US, that process is much more visible and involves the people and the press more. I suspect that what you are seeing now is what happens in the other countries you are thinking of in a dark smoky back room somewhere.

Greg,

In most countries they are selected by those who are members of the political party they want to represent. For example, in the UK the local parties in a constituency decide who will represent them in an election. They are obliged to organise and fund that for themselves. There is a requirement that anyone putting themselves forward for election are required to have a certain number of signatures of voters in the constituency, but that is not very high and it not a barrier to standing. They also have to pay a deposit, but as that is only £1000 again it is not a significant barrier.

In the US as far as I can tell they seem to be able to get the taxpayer to fund it, which does seem rather odd. Why should I, who am not a member of any political party, and do not donate to any political parties, have any say in who they put forward for election ? You discuss the Florida and Michigan Democrat primaries, and how they at first refused to recognise the results. Where does a political party get off deciding it will ignore the results of an election ? There is a word for that, and it is not democracy.

Matt:

I think you are quite misled or confused. All the fuss right now is not an election at all. It is the members and constituents of each party trying to decide who they want to put on the ballot for the election. It is not (generally*) "taxpayer funded". It is (generally*) completely a private affair of the parties. It just so happens that the two bigger parties here have chosen to run their internal, private selection process kind of like an election: they let the members of the party vote. This is a good thing, as Greg says. You, as not a member of any party, don't get to participate at all*, sorry.

-Kevin

*I say "generally" because things are really a bit messy, and in many ways the private selection process of the two big parties (i.e. the primaries) has gotten entangled with the public election process. Thats why you end up having election boards run some of the primaries, and various local or state governments having some say in the rules and procedures used for various pieces of the primaries, and the money issue is probably a total mess.

*And the rules vary by state, so maybe your tax dollars do go into one of the primaries in some way, and maybe you can even vote in one even if you are not a member depending on who you are or where you live. This is fine too -- the primaries are not an election, and if you don't like your parties primary system, you have plenty of others to choose from. Sadly, by "plenty" I mean 1+epsilon.

First, a small point of fact: the Libertarian Parety has its candidate already selected - Bob Barr. I would support him over McCain [like not supporting vs. NOT, NOT supporting] and his party may make a positive difference for Obama.

Matt: Where in a democracy is an election held without a campaign [except for one candidate] and without major contenders even being on the ballot?

I think that the best solution would have been caucuses in FL & MI paid for by the party after docking some major $$ from the state party bigwigs.

Kevin,

Sorry but you have left me even more confused. Either selecting a candidate is an internal party matter, in which case public bodies and funds would not be involved, or they are not, in which case I cannot see why political parties get to say how they are run. Also I find your contention that you have to a party member in order to vote in a primary had to accept. It would seem to indicate that the US must have the highest level of political party membership of any democratic country. How many millions of people have voted in the primaries so far ? All paying subs ?

"I think that the best solution would have been caucuses in FL & MI paid for by the party after docking some major $$ from the state party bigwigs."

Well why were they not paid for by the party ? If it is a party matter the party should pay.

"Matt: Where in a democracy is an election held without a campaign [except for one candidate] and without major contenders even being on the ballot?"

Nowhere that I am aware of. The difference seems to be in who gets a vote. In every other democratic country I can think of the party members, meaning those who have paid their dues, get to decide. The public then gets to choose between the various candidates of the various parties, plus any independents. The Democrats and Republicans must have lists of party members, so why not use those and have a postal vote paid for by the parties ?

How many of the primaries in the US are funded by the party and how many have the state paying for some or all of the costs ?

Matt, if you want to be less confused, start with the basics:

http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_how_primary_works.php

Stephanie,

Thanks for that, but it still leaves questions unanswered.

For example, it talks of "a movement to give more power to citizens in the selection of candidates for the party's nomination", and yet the selection of a candidate it a party, not public matter. Why involve citizens rather than party members.

Also this confuses me: "For example a voter registered as Democratic can vote only in the Democratic primary and a Republican can vote only in the Republican primary".

Kevin told me these are not elections, so there cannot be voters. And what is with this "registration" business ? Is that the same thing as a party member, as in belonging to the party, paying the annual subscription fee etc ?

The US system seems to be a odd hybrid of state and party, compared to most of the rest of the democratic world where how political parties choose they candidate is down to them, subject to them complying with any equal opportunity laws. Certainly that is how it is the UK. I am not a member of any party, so I do not get a choice in who stands for those parties. Once those parties have chosen I do get to decide between them in the election. If I want a say in who stands as the Labour candidate I need to join the Labour party. Likewise for the other parties.

In fact I would add that the election system in the UK does not really recognise political parties, merely individual candidates.

The only exceptions I am aware of is that a candidate may have a political party listed against their name on the ballot paper and there are restrictions that prevent a candidate from using that to potentially confuse voters. (That followed an election where a "Literal Democratic" took votes from a "Liberal Democrat" that cost the latter the election.)

The other exception is with some elections that use a list system of proportional representation.

Matt, odd hybrid is about right.

I'm also not a party member for various reasons largely having to do with how I react to being an official part of a group. Minnesota, where I live, is dedicated to everyone having their say. So I can influence which presidential candidate one party puts forward by caucusing for that party. For statewide offices, I can choose to vote in the primaries of whichever party I most want to influence. For local elections, primaries generally narrow the field of all the people who got themselves on the ballot, no matter what their party affiliation.

This sounds pretty chaotic, but I like it. The reasons I like it are that it encourages engaging with specific candidates and that it seems to be doing a better job than many state systems of supporting more than the two largest parties. For example, one isn't penalized in Minnesota for working to make the Greens more viable locally (necessary to make them viable nationally) by losing one's opportunity to have an impact on national elections.

So, yeah, it's weird. But it's a pretty reasonable reaction to a large and diverse country having only two parties of record.

Stephanie,

The two party think may have something to do with it. I live in the UK, as I have mentioned, and we have three major national political parties, plus a number of nationalist parties in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I live in Wales, so when I vote in a general election I have the choice of at least four candidates, and quite of often more depending if one of the fringe parties has put up a candidate or an independent is standing.

Also I am still confused by this registered business. I little more checking suggests you declare an affiliation when your register to vote. But that seems to defeat the whole concept of a secret ballot to me. It is not a matter of public record, nor any business of the government who I vote for, or even what my political leanings are. Also declaring an affiliation is not the same thing as being a member of a party. The latter at the very least normally requires some form of financial commitment.

With regards your comments about the Greens, or indeed other small parties, they are disadvantaged in any first past the post system. In the UK the only Green elected politicians are either at the local level, or in elections where PR is used.

Matt, I'm registered as an independent and would be even if I were a party member. They can ask, but I don't have to give good answers, at least not in Minnesota. But no, I'm not thrilled that they ask.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention in talking all about how elections here affect me (me!) is that the parties have a bit more influence than my description might suggest. Statewide candidates are strongly encouraged to pledge to drop out if the party decision-making process, which concludes before the primary, selects a different candidate. Some do, some don't. Also, the parties endorse candidates at the state and local levels, and that information is conveyed on the ballot.

Actually, now that I think about it more, I'm not sure whether it is on the ballot or just on the site that I use to prepare my sample ballot before I vote.

Kevin: I started to write the very email you wrote to Matt but realized I had to water the lawn and got outta here...

Matt: Here's the thing. Law and practice, in American (and more so in Britain) is a product of great documents that establish rights and responsibilities, precedence, and quirky history. There is, as I have said, no Constitutional procedure for the selection of candidates within parties. But the parties end up doing it a certain way.

Most of this does NOT involve a dime of public funding. The parties or candidates raise the money themselves. This applies both to the primaries, which are (atain) NOT elections... they are an internal process of each party that is none of anybody's business unless the parties want it to be.*

Now, there are two or three ways in which government and/or "public funds" get involved.

For one thing, we have at the federal level and in some states decided that tax payers can allocate a small donation to go to an election fund instead of to the general tax fund . This is entirely optional. It does not increase one's tax rate (some states may have this as an add-on, but the feds do not). However, this does not fund Primaries, only the general election.

For another thing, thare are various public funds and rules directing funds that are not public in support of the election, but these are small amounts of money.

There are two things you must understand bout the above two items: 1: they are a small part of the overall costs, and 2) these are things that voters have demanded. These derive from either laws or referenda designed to reduce the degree to which a rich person can buy an election. These are populous ideas held dear by members of all of the political parties (not all members, but some in each party) and if we (voters/taxpayers) wanted to get rid of these, we would be able to do so.

Now, there is a third thing that makes this all much more complicated and is actually the most interesting. First an analogy.

If I have a hotel with a swimming pool, there are state and federal laws (and sometimes county and city) regulating that pool. There are only certain ways I can operate that pool that the public has access to. I may even have to have a permit, which will have a fee.

Even a private pool is typically regulated, at least a little. After one or two toddlers are found floating dead in the neighbor's pool, most communities get around to a "fence your pool" law, for instance.

Well, it turns out that just like we like to protect toddlers as a society, we also like to protect voting. Our love of democracy and voting and shit makes us want to protect all voting . So, there are laws about how union related voting is carried out. We don't have laws about voting in things like faculty meetings ,but most intitutions dpecify "Roberts Rules" and this becomes "best practice" and you can go to HR and complain if best practices are not followed.

Stockhoders voting is regulated by the FTC.

And, finally, voting for candidates is somewhat regulated. The federal government has handed this job over entirely to the state. There are no Federal voting booths or voting officials on site. Allways, this is the state. However, the states may in turn turn much of the job over to the counties. Also, the state allows the parties to be present and thus to help in the process. So many of the people you encounter when you go to vote are Republican or Democratic** dopplegangers helping people to register, checking names, making sure everything goes well.

So, once there were voting laws by state, it became possible for states to also regulate primary voting, and they do. In theory, a party can have a system that totalloy excludes the state. As far as I know, we in Minnesota have no state involvement whatsoever in our process. But other states have party-wide primary voting regulated and managed by the state. This is all a matter of how voters in different states have decided to do it. Through the democratic process.

* Who gets to vote in a primary is determined by the State Party Constitution or Rules. In some states you have to be pre-registered. In some states you can show up and register on primary or caucus day. In some states anybody can show up and vote (once).

** The name of the party is The Democratic Party. "The Democrat Party" is how Republicans say it because they know it annoys Democrats. The use of the word Democrat to refer to Democratic Party is discouraged on this blog .

I just want to point out that the system does not work that way for good reasons.

Did you forget to mention them?

The primary is NOT an election.

The primaries are most certainly elections and are almost always paid for by the cities, towns or states that run them. This is why the legislature of NH can require that it be "first in the nation", and why the legislatures of Florida and Michigan decided on their primary dates in violation of DNC rules.

There is no Constitutional or legal requirement that anybody votes on anything.

True, but what's your point? Is this supposed to be a reason the current system is better than a straightforward count of the votes?

In order to really argue that we need to get rid of the Super Delegates, you need first to do the following:

Did you make a case for Super Delegates somewhere?

1) Explain exactly, with some detail, why Super Delegates exist.

They exist to ensure that voters don't screw up. Geraldine Ferraro made that point very explicitly in a NY Times editorial about a week before she exposed herself as a flagrant racist.

2) Explain what benefits, if any, have accrued in support of Super Delegates subsequent to their innovation.

Isn't that a job for those defending the institution?

3) Explain why getting rid of them is better than the afore mentioned benefits

It would have avoided all this nonsense about who is the inevitable nominee. We wouldn't have supers requesting bribes from the candidates. There would be no uncertainty about the rules. And it would create a clearly democratic choice for the leader of the free world.

Jinchi: You are partly right in what you say, but you are partly misinformed. And too much snark. In fact you've substituted snark for knowledge and elbow grease. Unfortunately, you have not risen to the challenge. You are welcome to try again!

Greg,

Thanks for that, it does clear some of the confusion I had up.

However there still remains the fact that in at least some states(*) you can declare an affiliation when you register to vote and unless you have done so you do not get to vote in a primary for that party.

How does that square with concept of a secret ballot ? I know it does not indicate which candidate you voted for, but it does indicate your political leanings. That surely is not something the state has any business recording. Indeed if that was tried in the UK the people trying in serious trouble for breaching data protection laws. It cannot be consistent with democratic principles that one must first declare an allegiance before being allowed to take a full part in the democratic process.

It also does not explain how the national Democractic party can ignore the will of two states, who presumably chose how to hold their elections democratically. Either the people of Florida decide how the primaries or run, or the national Democratic organisation does. If it is the latter then arguments about democracy in the process are so much hot air.

(*) When discussing the US there can often arise confusion when one talks of "the state". Does one mean the government, national and otherwise, or the State, as in a particular state. Unless I state otherwise, I mean it in the former sense.

Can I also add that just telling the electoral authority you support a particular party does not amount to membership of a party. Any reasonable definition of membership of an organisation implies a form to payment to that organisation, along with loyalty to it. The payment to be made can of course be dependent on income, and in same case of a person with a low income waived.

What action is taken against a person who registers in a Republican but is seen to be campaigning for the Democratic party ? In any system of party membership that person could be liable to expulsion as few political parties will tolerate members actively supporting their opponents.

Does the fact some states have state involvement mean that any party, not only the two main ones, can make use of the state funding ? And could a newly founded party demanded the state contact all voters to find who wishes to register as supporting them ? Can anyone found a party and get funding from the taxpayer if that State allows it ?

If party workers help run, as opposed to simply observe, an election, does that present problems with the potential for abuse of the system ?

It strikes me the current system mitigates against third parties, and that would be not be in the interests of democracy.

I'm with Matt. The process seems, to me, unnecessarily cumbersome and appears to stop the elected politicians from actually doing their job. Does anything actually get accomplished while everyone is out madly campaigning for what seems like forever??

The Canadian system is like the British system. There are conventions where the party delegates choose their candidates, but they are held independent of the election. Party members choose their delegates via local riding/constituency associations, then those delegates go to the convention. It's done fairly quickly and quietly.

We don't vote directly for the Prime Minister - the leader of the party with the most seats (generally) is the PM (minority governments are a slightly different ballgame).

In our system, active campaigning lasts 6 weeks between dropping the writ and holding the election. A winner is generally decided by midnight Pacific time.

Perhaps it is a less directly democratic process, but it does allow the sitting government to do what they're elected to do - govern, not campaign.

What snark? And where am I misinformed?

Here's Ferraro's case for Supers, which I think I paraphrased perfectly:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html

And Lanny Davis literally made a case for the benefits of smoke filled rooms.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-superdelegates-alw_b_8656…

Those are the only defenses of Super delegates I've seen. Maybe you know of better ones?

We've had reports of major party contributors threatening the party if their candidate didn't get satisfaction, we've had reports of black Democrats being threatened for not backing Obama, we've had both campaigns sending cash to superdelegate coffers and we've had elected Democrats openly demand the candidates put up for their votes.

I still haven't seen your case for the current system.

Greg,

I want add I in no way am having a go at you. The questions I have are simply ones I have never seen answered before.

CanadianChick,

I terms of time been calling an election and holding it the UK beats you! Here it is no more than four weeks, and often three.

One does have to ask how well the constituents of Clinton and Obama are being served whilst they are off campaigning. Can they really be putting as much effort into scrutinising legislation as they should ?

Matt: On party affiliation: Yes, exactly. My understanding is that party affiliations with the requirement that you be registered often months in advance of an election, with party membership being public record, was the norm in the past. You are suggesting that this could be abused. It certainly was! I am witness to that myself.

I believe this is why we see a shift towards motor-voting and non-registration or implied registration.

Americans who say "state" almost always mean one of the fifty provinces that we call state . "The State" as in The US is "the government" or sometimes "The Jack Booted Thugs"

Regarding how FLA and Mischigan primary people are getting screwed, or whatever, again, this goes back to what I was originally saying. gthe national democratic party distributes the job of nomination to the fifty states plus a few other entities (like D.C.) in a coordinated way, then they take the results and bring that to the convention, which is run by the national party. So we have about 54 different organizations: State level and territorial parties, each with its own constitution, and one national party.

The National party could ignore the states and just have a convention. That is how they used to do it . In fact, it's only been for the last few conventions that all 50 states are represented via a primary process. I think 1968 may have been the first year for that in the Democratic party.

The national party as a private organization could next year decide to nominate their next presidential candidate by using an American Idol format, or by putting all the contenders on an island and making them do stunts and voting each other off, or by drawing straws or whatever.

Instead, there is a multi-state/territory system. If a state wants to play in that game, it must follow the rules that are determined by a committee made up of representatives from all the states.

Except state legislatures, where state laws have been passed regulating elections in certain ways, can interfere, as happened in Florida, where the Republican Legislature moved the democratic primary to the wrong date, thus dienfranchising the Democratic voters by the rules of the Democratic party.

That was Karl Rove like dirty Republican politics. Vast right wing conspiracy.

Matt: On your send post, this question about membership is a straw man. You have set up rules that you are comfortable with to define membership and are holding Democrats to that standard . As an organization, each of the Democratic party organizations can define membership as they please.

The current system allows for a lot of fluidity and freedom.

I may have given a false impression above . the parties do not run these elections in states where they are regulated, nor do they run the general election. The two major parties provide assistance in even numbers, but the elections are run by the State or Territory.

Primaries and caucus in non-state-regulated states, and all caucuses as far as I know, are run by the party, period. No government money or involvement of any kind .

I want to make sure to impress the complexity of the process, because simple one-of statements about how something is unfair or should not be a certain way require actually underswtanding the system one is trying to deconstruct.

A political organizaiton exists by virtue of federal and state (state being more important in many ways) regulation. Just like a corporation. In at least some states, the party organizations are formed at the senate district level. So for instance, in Minnesota, there are a whole ;pile of individual Democratic parties, and another tier of parties at the congressional level (six of them) that subsume the smaller ones' responsibilities for passing on candiated, and then there is a state party that subsumes the responsibilities passed on to them from the congressional district parties. Each of these entities has a different charter, a different set of rules, a different constitution, a different set of officers, etc. etc.

Some senate district in Minnesota could decide that they are going to advance delegates to the next level using a ouiji board and that would be how they would do it. There is no government agency or higher authority of any kind telling them to not use the ouiji board.

There are probably clsoe to 500 separate legal entities that are political party organizations in the US, unevenly distributed by state, less than half Democrats, less than half Republicans, and some percentage other parties.

Which brings us to your other question: Yes, while there are two big parties, any party can come along and become an established party ., There is no national answer to the question "what parties are there" for all the reasons that I just stated above. The question can be asked at a state level. In MN, there are four active parties with candidates in office: Dems, Reps, and Independence and Green. As far as I know.

CanadianChick:There are conventions where the party delegates choose their candidates, but they are held independent of the election

Exactly as in the US.

Party members choose their delegates via local riding/constituency associations, then those delegates go to the convention.

exactly as in the US.

quickly and quietly

Hahaha!!!! THAT is where we differ!!! I'm not sure why that difference is automatically a bad thing. I think it's a good thing for us.

As far as the US system vs. the Parliamentary system, I have no strong opinion as to which system is better.

I want add I in no way am having a go at you. The questions I have are simply ones I have never seen answered before.

Matt: I totally get that.. And to both CanadianChick and Matt, while I think your objections are based mainly on a misunderstanding of the system, which is an almost impossible system to understand. I could at the same time agree that our system sucks.

But, it does not suck for activists. that is the interesting thing about the US system. Activists have more power than the average citizen. I'm not sure if that is true in all systems such as UK and Canadian.

One does have to ask how well the constituents of Clinton and Obama are being served whilst they are off campaigning. Can they really be putting as much effort into scrutinising legislation as they should ?

A reasonable question but it turns out that mostly we don't mind as a rule. First of all, each state has two Senators. But most importnatly, most people will give up a bit of governance by their representative for the chance of gaining a president from their district/state/city.

Jinchi:

YOu have not seen my case for the current system because I have not made one, nor do I intend to. I'm simply tired of uninformed whining. If someone wants to make a case for getting rid of super delegates, before they do that, or at least before I will be ingterested in their opinion, I'd like to know that they have some idea why the super delegate system was created to begin with.

It may be that we should get rid of them. It may also be that this is just reactionary. I would prefer to see a reasoned argument.

I recommend to all the link you provide form the NYT by G.F.

Greg,

So it would be fair to say that most Americans have trouble understanding how their political system works ? As an outsider I must be in real trouble trying to do so!

As for the power of activists, I can only speak for the UK and not for Canada, but here the constituency of an MP is around 100,000 people. It varies a bit as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales get slight more representation per capita than England, and rural areas get a bit more than urban areas but 100,000 is a decent average. The number of people who members of poltical parties varies of course, but I would doubt it ever goes much above about 1000. None of the main political parties have memberships over 500,000 for the whole country, and there are over 600 constituencies. Of those who are members of a political party most will not take a very active role in party affairs. Newspaper reports I have read suggest that for most parties in most constituencies there is probably only a few hundred (at most) active members. And it is those active members who get to decide who becomes the candidate in their constituency. Most selection meetings require that you turn up to cast your vote.

That said there are issues within the Conservative and Labour parties over candidate selection, and more generally the role of the local membership versus the national leadership: I suspect the Liberal Democrats and Nationalist parties have similar issues if not as well reported. A classic case is with the constituency of Blaenau Gwent, which has traditionally been a heartland of Labour support and had returned more than one significant player in the Labour movement over the years. Aneurin Beavin being one (essentially the political founder of the welfare state in the UK. However the Labour party has a policy of choosing certain constituencies to have women only shortlists of candidates, which did not go down well with the local party, who wanted to be able to choose who they wanted. As a result the Labour Party split, with the national party fielding a female candidate from London (who it has to be said did not seem to know much about a former mining area now facing serious problems that mining has gone) and a local splinter group that fielded the widow of a former MP. The splinter group won, with a massive majority. I can understand the reasoning behind the women only shortlist (which all parties seem to have adopted) as women do not have proportional representation in Parliament. The Conservatives have also had similar issues (although not on the scale of Blaenau Gwent), and have a particular problem with selecting candidates from ethnic minorities. The national leadership (which in fairness I can not call racist) has problems with the fact that the local parties seem to keep rejecting would-be MPs who are well qualified but not white.

As far as I can tell, from what you have said, and I have read, there does not seem to be much difference between the power wielded by activists, although the means by which they can wield power may vary. I do get the impression that it would be easier to participate in the electoral system as an independent in the UK though. Here in Wales something like a third to a half of local councillors have no party affiliation. Parties become more important at the national level, but there are two independent MPs at the moment (elected as such, rather than leaving a party once elected).

"Any reasonable definition of membership of an organisation implies a form to payment to that organisation, along with loyalty to it."

Why?

MRW,

Only in that organisations cost money to run, and that it seems reasonable to expect members of an organisation to contribute towards those costs. It also have additional effect of filtering out those people who's support does not extend as far as paying a few dollars or pounds a year. If someone is not interested enough to do that, is their support that valuable ?

I would add that membership of an organisation brings with it responsibilities for the conduct of that organisation. Thus someone who is a paid up member of the Republican party has to accept some blame for the conduct of Republican politicians. Someone who merely has chosen to list the Republicans as their chose of affiliated party when registering to vote still bears some blame, but less than paid up members. Those who vote Republican also bear some blame, but less than those who chose to affiliate.

All,
While many of our fellow US citizens may, indeed, not understand the political structure completely, many of us do. We are "members" only in the most cursory sense of any political party - in as much as declaration allows more full participation. By telling the state registrar of voters which Party I align myself with, I get to cast a ballot in the primary. One thing Greg missed, is that primaries are not just about Presidnetial candidates. They are also about local judgeships, county and state elections for our equivalent of COngress, and major changes to the tax code (which at the state level we citizens do vote on). Often, the state will treat the primary as a general election for everythign EXCEPT the PResidential race. In so doing, they virtually ensure that I will tell them which party I support, because I Want to be able to vote on those other issues and candidates. So we do cast votes in primaries, adn they do count for something.

THat said, while I count myself part of one of the major parties, I don't pay them dues, nor do I volunteer for thier efforts. My employer actually frowns on such things, becasue they too easily lead to asking for campaign donations (see the Hatch Act) for an explanation of why this is so. In that sense, I am not a party "member" but its a subtle distinction in the US.

So it would be fair to say that most Americans have trouble understanding how their political system works ?

None of us have a clue. The last person to understand us was a French Guy named De Toke-Ville or something like that.

We definitely make a distinction between "registered Democrat/Republican/Whatever" and "party activist" with the idea of "membership" kinda not matching too much. But this is all informal (see comments by Philip H.) People say "I am a member of the Democratic Party, as was my Dad and his Dad before him" etc. etc. but not one of these individuals ever had a membership card or paid dues. Maybe didn't even vote very often.

there does not seem to be much difference between the power wielded by activists, although the means by which they can wield power may vary.

I think that is correct.

I do get the impression that it would be easier to participate in the electoral system as an independent in the UK though. Here in Wales something like a third to a half of local councillors have no party affiliation.

Interesting. At the local level here, this is often true. The parties do not show up on the radar screen of certain local elections in certain states (like school board or even mayor). Boston has a system with runoffs and, I think, no Party affiliation for mayoral candidate except that everyone in Boston is automatically a Democrat) (this may have changed). But at higher levels, every elected official is either a D or an R pretty much. Except very few. Activists all have to be in a party to work meaningfully within the system, though there may be a party called "Independent" or "independence" for them to join and think they are not in a party. But they are.

Only in that organisations cost money to run, and that it seems reasonable to expect members of an organisation to contribute towards those costs.

Locally, our party raises money by passing the hat and by selling recipe books and stuff. I'm sure there are other ways, but phone calls to people, internet donations, etc. can all go to the party. Active "membership" is assured by volunteer time rather than paying to be a member. It may not actually be legal to charge for membership in a US political party. Anybody know? I don't think I've ever heard of it.

Philip: One thing Greg missed, is that primaries are not just about Presidnetial candidates. They are also about local judgeships, county and state elections for our equivalent of COngress, and major changes to the tax code (which at the state level we citizens do vote on).

Absolutely. In fact, in this election year, in Minnesota, the "caucus" for president consisted merely of a secret ballot and that was it. A "democratic party member" could show up, sign in, cast the vote, and leave. Activist stayed around for an hour or two to count those ballots, and to partake in other dicking around with things that did not seem too important but that would eventually lead to great things (electing delegates, etc.). Then, on other days, there are three levels of convention at which all sorts of decisions about elected officials happen and the party platform (at the state level) is hammered out. Plus, the party elects/appoints/etc. its own leadership. We are still in the procss of doing this in Minnesota.

And the hat is passed and the hat is passed and the hat is passed.

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.

Greg, I wouldn't blame the Florida Republicans for disenfranchising the Florida Dems. The Florida Democratic party made only very superficial objections to the change in date. Look at for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs-SAYaJKN4

I am such a full-blown atheist that I have made a hobby of getting in scripture fights with sincere, loving(tm) Christians. I love the sound that a Christian's faith makes when it goes from "on fire" to "lukewarm".

And yet, the claws-out, prissy bitch-fest that we call "Democrats" nowadays has made me reconsider the fact that a loving God just might exist. The world will never be able to grow enough corn to satiate my need for popcorn during this show. By all means, Greg, punish those disloyal Democrats! Punish, punish, punish!