With all of the talk of the elections...

[Shauna]

I have some questions.

:bullet How much of a margin does the winner have to have to be declared president? I mean, is it one percent or whatever? And what happens if it's a tie? Do you have a minority govn't or just have another election or what?

:bullet If Ralph Nader is also running, how come he wasn't in the debates as well?

:bullet Is there an age limit on those who are running? I know you have to be as old as thirty-five, but is there any kind of age cap after that?

This question goes for all countries:

:bullet Has your country ever voted in a leader that is NOT from the main parties?

[bellydancer]

Shauna,
The president is elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote. Each state is given a certain number of electoral votes and the members of the college (called the electors) cast the votes for their state based on the results of the popular vote, although some states decide this differently.

There are actually a number of people who run for president, when you factor in the independent party, natural law party, green party, libertarian party, constitution party and reform party.

The democrats and the republicans are the two main parties in the US and hence, most of the attention goes to those candidates. The smaller parties did have their own debate, but I don't know if it was televised. Why they're not included in the debate with the Dem/Rep candidates, I'm not sure. I suspect because each of those parties receive relatively few votes.

There is no upper cap on the age of the president as far as I know.

As for your last question, it's hard to say, because political parties have changed over the years and there are some parties that existed in the early years of this country that no longer exist.

[battgyrll]

Bellydancer answered those questions pretty well, but I did want to add one thing that I'm not sure if people know. I voted early absentee so I could vote in my old town where I knew what was going on and was very suprised to find out that Nader was not on the ballot. It was Bush, Kerry, some libertarian and an independent, netiher of whose names I recognized.

When Perot was running he was in the debates, so I think bellydancer is right and it has something to do with the amount of votes they get or are going to get. I can't imagine that the people in the other parties think that they will win. They must be running on the matter of principle.

:bat battgyrll :bat
Sara

[Millificent]

battgyrll said:I voted early absentee so I could vote in my old town where I knew what was going on and was very suprised to find out that Nader was not on the ballot. It was Bush, Kerry, some libertarian and an independent, netiher of whose names I recognized.

I think that's because the candidates have to go through official procedures to appear on the ballot for each state. Nader did not qualify in some states, though I haven't paid enough attention to know why.

To tie this directly in to Shauna's questions, each state has it's own laws about ballotting procedures, which have gotten even messier since the two-thousand debacle. Maryland, where I live, has ongoing lawsuits about whether our computerized system needs to have paper backups, in case the system crashes!

:dragon Millie

[gone]

Good question about third parties being on the ballot.

I went to a debate in my town last night and there were representatives there from the democrat, republican, independent, green, libertarian, and socialist parties, all running for senator. It was crazy! The socialist candidate was saying that his presidential candidate was barred from even being on the ballot in a lot of states because of laws; I know Nader is currently barred from the ballot in PA because they said some of his signatures were fraudulent.

Nader's on the ballot in some states, not others. I think that's ridiculous. If you want to be on the ballot, you should be able to be on the ballot.

[Millificent]

Nader's on the ballot in some states, not others. I think that's ridiculous. If you want to be on the ballot, you should be able to be on the ballot.

Without having to obey the laws about how to get on the ballot? I think if someone isn't able to follow those rules, I sure don't want them having any chance of being elected!

:dragon Millie

[Vicks]

ditto - to Milli.

As long as you follow election laws you can get on the ballots.

I would have to look up history to see why Perot was in the debates.

As much as I would at times love to have more variety represented in certani things, the facts are that the US is in general is a two party system.

In other countries, I am not entirely sure how many parties there are, something I will have to read up on.

Vicks

[Shauna]

I believe Canada is mainly a three party country.

If Ralph Nader can't be on the ballot in every state and probably has no chance of winning, why bother even allowing him to run? Shouldn't there be guidelines for the country as a whole, instead of individual states?

Politics in the States are kind of confusing, aren't they?

[Vicks]

very confusing. The entire electoral college when created made some sence I guess, but it is now to me very antiquated.

There should be some sort of standardization. Even in the voteing process there are different rules and regulations. Some states let you vote electronically on machines, Oregon actually lets you mail in your ballots, there is way to much variation.

vicks

[Millificent]

Shauna said: Shouldn't there be guidelines for the country as a whole, instead of individual states?

The right of states to make their own laws about pretty much anything is a very old, very big issue in America - it's part of the basis of the whole-gay marriage argument (should it be a state decision or federal).
So while most people would probably agree that their show be consistency across the country, voting laws are going to stay at state level.

:dragon Millie

[Shauna]

It's just all very confusing. I am getting it though. I guess with so many states and whatnot it would be difficult to have the same rules. While I'm not aware of different laws regarding elections in Canada, I know that each province has it's own laws regarding things like gay marriage (I believe it's six provinces and/or territories recognize it) and Sunday shopping. I live in the only province in Canada that doesn't allow Sunday shopping--but allows gay marriage. Go figure. Of course, residents in the province weren't allowed to vote on gay marriage--or else I'm sure that that would be a no-no, too.

[battgyrll]

If Ralph Nader can't be on the ballot in every state and probably has no chance of winning, why bother even allowing him to run?

I think, I'm not sure, but I thyink, it is becuase if he gets a certain percentage of the popular vote then the party gets more money. And with more money over time, he might actually win. But it would take a while, and a lot more people voting for him for that to happen.

:bat battgyrll :bat
Sara