One year from today...

[deep]

my guess is that delegates to party conventions is tied to

delegates or representation in the U S House of Representatives

Current territories

A territory, under U.S. law, is a distinct, often largely self-governed jurisdiction inhabited by U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals that for constitutional, historical, or political reasons, is not an actual state. Under the United States Constitution only states are granted voting representation in both chambers of the Congress.

Currently, three U.S. territories are represented by non-voting Delegates: American Samoa, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands. There is an effort underway to likewise grant to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands a non-voting Delegate. In the case of Northern Mariana Islands, when the debate became more intense in the late 1970s, the House was a little reluctant to grant a non-voting delegate due to the territory's relatively small population of about 15,000 (1970 population). However, today the total population is about 80,801 (House Committee Report 109-110, Committee on Resources, Northern Mariana Islands Delegate Act). Looming in the background is the "one man, one vote" case law which places pressure on Congress and state legislatures to keep the population of federal Congressional Districts roughly equal.

Washington D.C.

The District of Columbia, otherwise known as Washington, D.C., the capital city of the United States, is technically a federal district — not a territory, commonwealth or insular area — but, for purposes of representation in the House, is nevertheless entitled to a non-voting Delegate.

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico, a U.S. Commonwealth, is represented by a non-voting "Resident Commissioner" who holds a status similar to that of a Delegate within the House, but who serves a four year term. The Resident Commissioner is the only individual elected to the House who has a four year term — all remaining non-voting Delegates and all regularly voting traditional Representatives serve a term consisting of only two years.

[maycocksean]

Originally posted by deep
my guess is that delegates to party conventions is tied to

delegates or representation in the U S House of Representatives

Yes, I think that's right. One of the results of the current bill under consideration that would federalize our immigration is that we would get a non-voting delegate.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by yolland

No, Hawai'i has a caucus. All states have either a primary or a caucus. Washington DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands also have primaries. Only the Northern Marianas Islands (where maycocksean lives, unfortunately for him where elections are concerned) don't get to vote.

Oh, ok, I've read somewhere that they are doing some special kind of election that lasts about a week or so.

[yolland]

^ Yeah, Hawai'i's Republican caucus (though not its Democratic caucus) takes place over several days; it's the only one like that. I asked an in-law of mine who lives there why that is, and his explanation was, "Well, there aren't too many Republicans in Hawai'i, so they have to do everything on island time to make sure enough people show up to make it worth their while." ( 'Island time,' referring to Hawai'ians' famously lax attitude towards adhering to any sort of schedule.) He's not a Republican, so I'd take that with a grain of salt, but it's the only explanation I've been able to come across for it.

You did a very nice job explaining all the other aspects though, much better than most Americans would. I don't teach American politics, but every election year I still get lots of students asking, "What's a caucus?" "What do those delegate counts mean?" etc., etc. I know they all learned this stuff at some point back in high school, but because it only happens once every four years (we have primaries for state and local positions too, but few people vote in them) and because the setups are fairly complicated and vary from one state to the next, it's the sort of thing most people get pretty fuzzy on the details of.

[Vincent Vega]

Thank you.

Repetition really works, and reading so much about the election over the past few weeks helps a lot to learn about that system.
We did have the US political system in very short once in school, but in between two elections much gets forgotten again.
It's really confusing that not only each state has different rules, but also do they have between the two parties, and then there are caucusses and primaries. I've now got the basics about the caucus, and know about super-delegates which I've never heard before; and found rather a bit funny like in a game where the one suddenly pulls out his special trump, but well. And of course that there is closed and open primaries etc I've learned once.

When it comes to elections in the US the media here always has to include those boxes that explain the primaries and the election process in very short so people know that this is not yet about the actual president.

[susanp6]

What a great day it will be!

[Carek1230]

A year from now it'll all be over for the Bush's, sweep them all under the rug. G-d forbid any more of them show up in the Oval Office in the future.

[Infinity]

Originally posted by AchtungBono
I have only 4 words for the day Bush leaves office:

G-d help us all.......

You know, there are many people out there who support the neo-conservative agenda yet still admit that Bush is not that great of a leader. You are just on another level of insanity.

[Infinity]

Originally posted by AchtungBono


I'm sure Al Quaida is counting too and just waiting for the day the new administration is sworn in and the war on terror officially comes to a halt.

I actually agree with you on this one. If we elect someone who is against policing the world, and the terrorist finally leaves office, the war on him (and other terrorists in his administration) will eventually come to an end, given that U.S. policy changes.

Good point.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Infinitum98


I actually agree with you on this one. If we elect someone who is against policing the world, and the terrorist finally leaves office, the war on him (and other terrorists in his administration) will eventually come to an end, given that U.S. policy changes.

Good point.

Yes, Islamic Terrorism began with GWB and it has nothing at all to do with expansionist religious belief or political opportunism by such fundamentalists, if left alone they will just keep to themselves and peacefully coexist with secular progressive elements in the world.

What did America do to provoke the Barbary Pirates?

[fly so high!]

A year! Why so LOOOOOOONG!!

No wonder you guys don't vote....you bloody forget to

[Infinity]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Yes, Islamic Terrorism began with GWB and it has nothing at all to do with expansionist religious belief or political opportunism by such fundamentalists, if left alone they will just keep to themselves and peacefully coexist with secular progressive elements in the world.

What did America do to provoke the Barbary Pirates?

Oh he was talking about Islamic Terrorism? He had said the War on Terror so I was referring to the terrorist activities of the Bush Administration over the last 5 years.

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, and your response implied that it is US foreign policy that is the sole driving force behind it, that if America was more isolationist then Islamic terrorism would cease because it is supposedly retaliatory.

But then countries like Spain do remove forces from crusader wars and bomb plots continue to be pursued. Countries get threatened over freedoms wholly independent of GWB or the USA (MoToons). At what point does violence cease to be the fault of the victim, sure Americans may deserve everything they get but a lowly Dutch filmmaker? A consular official from a cartoon exporting nation? The palaeocon isolationist streak is an arguable case, but I don't think it is a panacea for a religious belief that the world is divided into a House of Islam and the rest a House of War.

And again what would you have done against the Barbary Pirates? The question seems fitting as it matches a time when America was much more like Ron Pauls platform.

[anitram]

I am already really enjoying this period of utter irrelevance for Bush. I love how anytime I turn on the news, his smug, smirking face is no longer there. I love how nobody talks about him anymore. I love how there is a sense of hope that maybe, just maybe the ills he's done may be undone sooner than 3 generations from now. I love the change in discourse, the change in tone, and the change in feeling towards the US abroad that is palpable. It is like when you emerge from a long illness, and every day you get stronger, little by little.

What a feeling.

[A_Wanderer]

Just wait until McCain and Clinton are the nominees

[anitram]

Haven't you heard?

Hope dies last.

[Axver]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Just wait until McCain and Clinton are the nominees

Yeah. I don't know about you, but I've noticed here that a lot of more positive attitudes towards the US are dependent on there being a President Obama at the end of January 2009.

[A_Wanderer]

That was the joke, even though the policy differences may be meaningless.

[Axver]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
That was the joke, even though the policy differences may be meaningless.

I don't think many people at all see the policy differences (or lack thereof). They just see the possibility of a Clinton dynasty and recoil.

Though it'll be even worse if McCain is not the Republican candidate. Romney or Huckabee would sure earn some ill will. The US's international standing was lucky Obama won Iowa, because if it had been Clinton, a lot more would've been made about Huckabee taking it for the Republicans. Though I'm sure Family First were out popping non-alcoholic champagne.

[yolland]

Huckabee won't be the nom. He'll probably win a few more states in the South and Midwest, but that's it.