what's nomination process, national convention and electoral college purpose?

Question

or where can i find the answers?? (website)

Answer 1

I am not sure that there is an overall purpose to the nomination process as much as it is an accident of history.

The first thing to realize is that, despite what the media might lead you to believe, we do not have national elections in this country. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to set the time, place, and manner of elections for federal offices, but the actual conduct of elections is, for the most part, left to the states. Furthermore, the Constitution expressly lets the state legislatures pick the electors who ultimately elect the President.

The second thing is to recognize that political parties are a natural by-product of a republican system of government. If I am a politician who wants, for example, regulations on greenhouse gases, I can't achieve that by simply being elected in my own district or state. To get that elected into law, I need enough other politicians who feel the same to get elected. This requires me to form an association with these other politicians to help them get on the ballot and win in their districts (and for them to do the same for me).

Over time, because elections were run at the state level, these poltical associations became recognized as political parties under state law. In addition, states passed laws governing how political parties and candidates got on the ballot. Finally, the state legislatures decided to delegate the task of choosing the presidential electors to the voters.

It is in this system that you then have these state political parties associating in a national political party. As far back as 1832, these national political parties decided that the way to get a candidate elected president was for the party to choose to run one candidate in all of the states. The question then became how to choose that one candidate. The answer was to have each state political party send representatives to a national meeting to choose a candidate. Thus, the national political convention was born.

Once you have a national convention designated as the means for choosing the presidential candidate, the next question becomes how do you choose the representatives. The answer to this question has changed over time. However, the current answer used by both parties essentially was developed between 1952 and 1976.

Prior to 1952, the process of choosing delegates was mostly done by the organized leadership of the political party -- working through a caucus/state convention system in most of the states. However, a gradual move occurred (first in the early part of the twentieth century for other offices, and then later for the presidential conventions) to replace caucus systems with primaries. After the fiasco that was the Democratic 1968 Convention in Chicago, rules changes were adopted to make the delegate selection process more open and more responsive to the public. While the Democratic Party's problems was the impetus for the changes, many of the changes have also been adopted by the Republicans.

Today, both parties have somewhat similar rules for delegate selection. In both parties, the state parties get to choose between having a binding primary (in which the allocation of delegates is determined by the votes in the primary) and having a caucus system.

However, the state parties don't get to choose whether there is a primary at all or the date of the primary. That decision is made by the state legislature. This fact complicates the matter by taking control out of the hand of the national parties to establish a rational calendar. Most state parties believe that, if there is a state primary, it should be binding as the best expression of the will of the members of the party (since more people vote in primaries than attend caucuses).

This gives you the current system. Both parties have three types of delegates (the numbers and how allocated differ). First, they have delegates chosen by congressional district. Second, they have delegates chosen at-large by state. Third, they have party leaders (who get their seats by virtue of position). For the congressional and state delegates, the Republicans tend to use a winner-take-all system (i.e. the candidate who gets the plurality in the state or in the congressional district gets all the delegates) and the Democrats use a proportional representation system.

If you want more information on the whys and wherefores, both parties maintain web pages for the 2008 conventions. I am not sure that you will find the FAQs satisfying because, stripped of all the rhetoric, the system of delegate selection is mostly the result of evolution of the original system to respond to periodic criticism without anyone ever having sat down to decide if the basic system still makes sense.

The electoral college is a constitutional compromise between the big states and the small states. It also reflects the framers distrust of a directly elected president. They thought the method of indirect election would give the president sufficient strength to function while leaving the House of Representatives as the branch with the most public support.

Answer 2

www.votesmart.org will explain any other question you may have.

The Electoral College system WORKS and is supported by the US Constitution. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states.

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political awareness.
The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism -- the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.

Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president.

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/World/Electoral-College-13750.html
Over 700 amendments have been proposed to modify or abolish the Electoral College. All have failed.

Actually-The "largest groups" who oppose the Electoral College system are usually Democrats and those people living in Large States. Smaller states benefit from the Electoral College. A voter in Wyoming has a much greater chance of affecting the election than a voter in California. Even though California has a huge number of electoral votes, it also has a huge number of voters. Proportionately, the states with the low electoral votes are better off having the electoral college. This favors states in the Rocky Mountains, Midwest and Deep South where Democrats don’t do so well.

REMEMBER: The President is a FEDERAL POSITION and ALL STATES SHOULD COUNT!

Your State Senators and Congressmen/women will vote on behalf of your state. After the polls close, the Senators and Congressmen cast their votes for the candidate that their state chose.

A total of 270 votes are needed to be elected President of the total 538 possible votes.

In 2000 there were only 2 states that did not operate under the "winner take all" method. They were Nebraska and Maine. The other 48 states and D.C. are winner take all electoral votes.

Here's a map with the electoral points for each state in 2004:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/electorl.gif

VOTE TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE!

Answer 3

Electoral college. it is a matter of states rights. It gives more power to small states. yes it is good, and we should keep it.