Valg i USA. Kan noen forklare?

I dag startet valget i USA, på en måte, virker det som.

Jeg har forstått at det skal velges hvilke representanter som skal representere demokratene og republikanerne. Det jeg ikke helt forstår er hvilket valg dette egentlig er. Vi nordmenn har da ikke egne valg for å bestemme hvem som er Aps og FrPs statsministerkandidater.

Hvem er det som arrangerer disse valgene? Hvem er velgerne? Er det kun disse to partiene som dette gjelder eller er det alle partier?

Om noen med kunnskap om dette kunne gjøre meg litt klokere så hadde jeg vært takknemlig.

Værsågod.

Det jeg lurer på er hvilket ukeblad jeg skal abonnere på isteden for Time, som bare har skrevet om det amerikanske valget i ukesvis og sikkert vil fortsette med det helt fram til et par måneder etter presidentvalget. Og det er i den europeiske utgaven av Time. Noen tips til god politisk journalistikk som holder seg litt mer til Europa? Helst i det veldig lettbrukelige formatet som Time har.

Dagens A-magasin har en god artikkel om dette.
Satt akkurat å leste den nå.
Hver stat holder primærvalg der partirepresentanter stemmer på den av sitt partis representanter de ønsker skal gå videre. Nei vi har ikke dette i Norge. I USA er det jo et to-parti-system som gjør dette mulig. De som ikke representerer demokratene eller republikanerne er uavhengige og i prinsippet partiløse. De komme i så fall på et senere stadie i valgprosessen. Etter primærvalgene i hver stat er det opp til landsmøtet i partiene å avgjøre hvem som blir partiets presidentkandidat. Dette er i praksis en formalitet hvis en kandidat har vunner primærvalgene, men er det likt avgjør møtet.

Primærvalgene blir arrangert av statene.
primærvalget er etter hva jeg forstår heller ikke hemmelig så du må være sterk i troa for å delta. Leste i dag at flere kvier seg for å delta da de ikke ønsker krangel på jobbe, hvis de f.eks eier en restaurant e.l.

Takk for info begge to.

Det var slik jeg egentlig tenkte meg det var. Ikke helt i demokratiets ånd...


Dan:
Her finner du kanskje tips: http://ask.metafilter.com/22751/The-Fate-of-The-European-newspaper

Er det MER i demokratiets ånd at kun medlemmer i et parti kan bestemme hvem som skal være kandidater? Eller delegater fra fagforeninger der du kun kan være medlem om du har en spesiell jobb?

Egen historie:
Jeg ble nominert på nest siste plass på Senterpartiets liste på Nesodden. Jeg fikk invitasjon til nominasjonsmøtet med møte- men ikke tale- eller stemme-rett siden jeg ikke var medlem av partiet. Jeg kunne imidlertid melde meg inn for å si at jeg ikke ville representere partiet.

Jeg ringte partileder og kjeftet, og fikk selvsagt svaret at jeg ikke kunne nekte å stå på liste, men "fikk slippe" da jeg mente at den rette løsningen var å stå på lista og "melde overgang" til annet parti om jeg ble kumulert nok til å bli plaget med dette.

Er det mer demokratisk enn et folkemøte der alle som vil har adgang og kan stemme på den de liker.


LarsB

Det jeg mener ikke er demokratisk i denne henseende er måte man driver topartisystemet. Ved å gjøre det på denne måten sørger man effektivt for at ingen utenfor disse to partiene har noen reell mulighet i valget. Nå er det ikke sikkert de hadde hatt det likevel, men da hadde det ikke vært systemet som sørget for det, men mer velgerne.

I tillegg kommer dette som Øyvind skrev (hvis så er tilfelle); at valgene ikke er hemmelige og at mange derfor ikke ønsker å stemme.

Å sammenligne med vår valgordning blir helt feil, da vi har to rimelig forskjellige systemer.

Hvis noen er lei valgkampen i USA allerede legger jeg ved Obamas tale her for de som ønsker å bry seg om resultatet. Dette ga i hvertfall meg litt mening.

Thank you so much. To the great Governor of Iowa and Lieutenant. Governor of Iowa. To my dear friend Tom Harkin for the outstanding work that he does. To the congressional delegation of Iowa that is doing outstanding work and to Nancy Pelosi, Madam Speaker, thank you all for the wonderful welcome and the wonderful hospitality.

[Responding to Audience]I love you back.

A little less than one year from today, you will go into the voting booth and you will select the President of the United States of America.

Now, here’s the good news – the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot. The name of my cousin Dick Cheney will not be on the ballot. We’ve been trying to hide that for a long time. Everybody has a black sheep in the family. The era of Scooter Libby justice, and Brownie incompetence, and Karl Rove politics will finally be over.

But the question you’re going to have to ask yourself when you caucus in January and you vote in November is, “What’s next for America?”

We are in a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. The planet is in peril. The dream that so many generations fought for feels as if it’s slowly slipping away. We are working harder for less. We’ve never paid more for health care or for college. It’s harder to save and it’s harder to retire. And most of all we’ve lost faith that our leaders can or will do anything about it.

We were promised compassionate conservatism and all we got was Katrina and wiretaps. We were promised a uniter, and we got a President who could not even lead the half of the country that voted for him. We were promised a more ethical and more efficient government, and instead we have a town called Washington that is more corrupt and more wasteful than it was before. And the only mission that was ever accomplished is to use fear and falsehood to take this country to a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged.

It is because of these failures that America is listening, intently, to what we say here today – not just Democrats, but Republicans and Independents who’ve lost trust in their government, but want to believe again.

And it is because of these failures that we not only have a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of great opportunity. We have a chance to bring the country together in a new majority – to finally tackle problems that George Bush made far worse, but that had festered long before George Bush ever took office - problems that we’ve talked about year after year after year after year.

And that is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won’t do in this election. That’s why not answering questions ‘cause we are afraid our answers won’t be popular just won’t do. That’s why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won’t do. Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do. If we are really serious about wining this election Democrats, we can’t live in fear of losing it.

This party – the party of Jefferson and Jackson; of Roosevelt and Kennedy – has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose – a higher purpose. And I run for the Presidency of the United States of America because that’s the party America needs us to be right now.

A party that offers not just a difference in policies, but a difference in leadership.

A party that doesn’t just focus on how to win but why we should.

A party that doesn’t just offer change as a slogan, but real, meaningful change – change that America can believe in.

That’s why I’m in this race. That’s why I am running for the Presidency of the United States of America – to offer change that we can believe in.

I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists – and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am President.

I’m in this race to take those tax breaks away from companies that are moving jobs overseas and put them in the pockets of hard working Americans who deserve it. And I won’t raise the minimum wage every ten years –I will raise it to keep pace so that workers don’t’ fall behind.

That is why I am in it. To protect the American worker. To fight for the American worker.

I’m in this race because I want to stop talking about the outrage of 47 million Americans without health care and start actually doing something about it. I expanded health care in Illinois by bringing Democrats and Republicans together. By taking on the insurance industry. And that is how I will make certain that every single American in this country has health care they can count on and I won’t do it twenty years from now, I won’t do it ten years from now, I will do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States of America.

I run for president to make sure that every American child has the best education that we have to offer– from the day they are born to the day they graduate from college. And I won’t just talk about how great teachers are – as President I will reward them for their greatness – by raising salaries and giving them more support. That’s why I’m in this race.

I am running for President because I am sick and tired of democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting, and voting like George Bush Republicans.

When I am this party’s nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don’t like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture – because it is never ok. That’s why I am in it.

As President, I will end the war in Iraq. We will have our troops home in sixteen months. I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century – nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

America, our moment is now.

Our moment is now.

I don’t want to spend the next year or the next four years re-fighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s.

I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America, I want to be the President of the United States of America.

And if those Republicans come at me with the same fear-mongering and swift-boating that they usually do, then I will take them head on. Because I believe the American people are tired of fear and tired of distractions and tired of diversions. We can make this election not about fear, but about the future. And that won’t just be a Democratic victory; that will be an American victory.

And that is a victory America needs right now.

I am not in this race to fulfill some long-held ambitions or because I believe it’s somehow owed to me. I never expected to be here, I always knew this journey was improbable. I’ve never been on a journey that wasn’t.

I am running in this race because of what Dr. King called “the fierce urgency of now.” Because I believe that there’s such a thing as being too late. And that hour is almost upon us.

I don’t want to wake up four years from now and find out that millions of Americans still lack health care because we couldn’t take on the insurance industry.

I don’t want to see that the oceans have risen a few more inches. The planet has reached a point of no return because we couldn’t find a way to stop buying oil from dictators.

I don’t want to see more American lives put at risk because no one had the judgment or the courage to stand up against a misguided war before we sent our troops into fight.

I don’t want to see homeless veterans on the streets. I don’t want to send another generation of American children to failing schools. I don’t want that future for my daughters. I don’t want that future for your sons. I do not want that future for America.

I’m in this race for the same reason that I fought for jobs for the jobless and hope for the hopeless on the streets of Chicago; for the same reason I fought for justice and equality as a civil rights lawyer; for the same reason that I fought for Illinois families for over a decade.

Because I will never forget that the only reason that I’m standing here today is because somebody, somewhere stood up for me when it was risky. Stood up when it was hard. Stood up when it wasn’t popular. And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world.

That’s why I’m running, Iowa – to give our children and grandchildren the same chances somebody gave me.

That’s why I’m running, Democrats – to keep the American Dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity, who still thirst for equality.

That’s why I’m asking you to stand with me, that’s why I’m asking you to caucus for me, that’s why I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept. In this election – in this moment – let us reach for what we know is possible. A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again. Thank you very much everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_%28United_States%29#Primaries_and_Caucuses

Det var et nytt parti for meg... Takker.

Uten at jeg vet hva som er den faktiske årsaken til at man har en regel om at man kan bli satt opp mot egen viten og vilje:

Denne regelen kan jeg faktisk se at kan ha en mening i demokratiet. Den kan være en måte å sikre at partier har nok representanter til å fylle alle plassene de er blitt tilgodesett med i et valg. Jeg kjenner ikke historien, men mulig dette kunne være et problem tidligere. At regelen muligens er utdatert er en annen sak.

Det var akkurat en reportasje om dette på tv'n:
- Der samlet alle som ville stemme, og var registrerte, seg i hvert sitt område i et stort rom (dette var et lite sted og en gymsal ble brukt) alt etter hvem de ville stemme på.
- Så ble de minste gruppene (det vil si de kandidatene som fikk minst oppslutning) tatt bort. De som hadde stemt på disse fikk tilbud om å stille seg i en annen gruppe!
- Når man hadde redusert antall grupper nok så telte man opp og rangerte kandidatene etter hvor mange så sto i deres gruppe.

Altså veldig så åpenlyst hva man stemte!!!

Sjekk NRK.no kanskje.

Jeg er fast leser av Foreign Policy, men det er desverre ikke ukeblad - men derimot annenhver måned. Og de tar for seg hele verden. Men det er lettlest og interessant.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

Selv sverger jeg til The Economist. Jeg synes det er betdyelig mindre glorete enn Time og Newsweek. Du slipper også å lure på hvor du har dem politisk, de er for frihandel uansett.

En skyggeside ved valg i USA, var valget i 2000 og 2004.
Noen av problemene/triksene:

- Noen valglokaler hadde flere stemmer enn det var registrert stemmeberettigede.
- Valglokaler manglet stemmesedler.
- De elektroniske stemmemaskinene hadde store problemer
- Partiene ansatte folk til å ringe rundt i områder der motparten var sterk, og hevde at det var problemer med registreringen dems, at de måtte registrere seg på nytt.
- Over 90.000 stemmer ble forkastet i Ohio grunnet "feil på kortene"
- Nesten 60.000 stemmekort ble ikke sendt ut i Florida.
- U.S. Commission on Civil Rights og BBC la frem dokumentasjon på at 54% av alle forkastede stemmer i Florida i 2000 tilhørte afroamerikanere. Dette fortsatte i 2004. BBC hevdet i en dokumentar, at hvis man baserer seg på antallet prosent demokrater blant afroamerikanere - så ville Kerry ha vunnet hvis dette ikke hadde skjedd.
- The Herald Tribune skrev flere artikler der de la frem hvordan selv stemmelokalene i Namibia, El Salvador og Venezuela hadde bedre sikkerhet mot juks enn USA.
- Flere Civil Right organisasjoner måtte gå sammen og saksøke stemmeområder (Counties) i Florida for å få innblikk i stemmebøker og annen dokumentasjon på at valget hadde gått korrekt for seg.
- Pluss mye mye mye mer...

Kilder:
Gå på Wikipedia og søk etter "2004 United States presidential election", og scroll ned til kildehenvisningen - så finner du artikler hos BBC, RollingStone, Herald Tribune og mange mange mange flere - samt linker til alle rettsakene.

USA har virkelig sin egen versjon av demokrati...

Her i Norge blir det jo kaos bare noen prøver å kjøpe stemmer med gratis kebab

Etter at Bush kom til makten så har vel ikke demokrati og menneskerettigheter hadde de beste kår i det landet.



Vi har vel ikke like gode tradisjoner med valgjuks her til lands kanskje.

[/quote]

Vi har vel ikke like gode tradisjoner med valgjuks her til lands kanskje. [/quote]

"kebab saken" i Drammen er vel ikke mye å skryte av, men men... Kanskje vi vil oppleve litt fusk og bestikkelser vi også etter hvert. Hvem vet?

Vi får satse på at det siste ikke er nødvendig på en stund.