Since the primaries have practically ended (we all know Obama will win, we all know McCain has won although not yet formally) the talk about politics has whittled down. So I will grab this opportunity to talk about politics without being spammed by Obamabots or Paulies.

During election months I always hear people calling for increased voter participation. It seems to be a universally accepted truth that higher voter participation is a goal in itself, and therefore people say things like "it doesn't matter what you vote - just vote" and stuff like that.

I want to say the excactly opposite. What you vote matters, therefore you should probably stay away from it.

This is because there exists GOOD policies and there exists BAD policies. Those policies are decided by the politicians, and those politicians respond (vaguely) to the voters wishes: They will usually do what will bring them the most voters.

So in order to institute GOOD policies we need to have voters voting for politicians who will institute those policies... And this is where the trouble starts. Since no field but religion(if even that) is so filled with lies, distortions and half-truths as politics, deciding what is a good policy and which politician will support them requires a substantial effort as well as a minimum of knowledge.

Now, people who won't vote unless practically forced to, people who won't vote unless they are repeatedly brainwashed into believeing it is something they have to do, people who aren't really into politics and who aren't really interested... They will to a larger degree than others judge based on looks, image and personal factors rather than politics. Those people are not likely to vote for the best policies.

Therefore I will encourage you all not to vote. Not that all of you are politically incompetent, but those of you who aren't will probably not heed this request anyways and those who are will maybe.

Edit: Added poll option: "I live in a country in which voting is mandatory".
And for the underages: Pretend to be 18 for this poll.

Can you add a 'can't vote, but would' option? Curse being an underage non-American who watches all the debates and such...

Ingenious. I never really looked at it that way, but I completely agree. Oddly enough I just turned 18 and now am allowed to vote. I'm glad I ran across this thread cause alls my parents can do is sit there and lecture me about how my vote is going to make a difference even if I decided against there political affiliation. This thread definitely made not voting so much more logical and easier to explain to my parents the reasons why I shouldn't vote. Thanks.

see, this argument makes sense but only on one level. Here in Australia we are required to vote by law. As a result of this by age 12 we understand the basics of how to vote, why we vote and why it's important to vote. we live in a democracy (sort of) which means the most popular wins. we have the means to place someone in power. it's a massive responsibility. i would say rather than getting people not to vote, getting people to understand the issues would be a better way to go about it. i understand what you are saying here, that you think power and ignorance are a bad combo, and you're right, but at the same time you really don't have grounds to tell the ignorant not to use their power, you can just teach them about it. does that make sense?

You see, being an Australian, as jim said, we have to vote. But, even if I was given the opportunity not to vote, I'd do it anyway, as it is my responsibility to do my part in order to ensure Australia has competent leadership. And, in Australia, it's pretty simple to vote, and the parties will explain their platform and all, so, you have quite a bit of information to decide a party to vote for.

One thing I don't like about American politics is that your presidential elections seem like popularity votes. Yes, popularity votes will play a factor, but, I was brought up believing that it was the party you vote for, not the person. If I've got the wrong impression, than please explain to me why, would you kindly.

- A procrastinator

As an Australian like what seems to be half the forum, I too have to vote as soon as I hit 18. But, given the chance, I wouldn't vote at all, because although I do care about who runs the country, none of our politicians are any good.

By that I mean the ones running for Prime Minister, I'd still vote for the premier of my state.

Yeah...

in New Zealand we dont have to vote but we have to be registered to vote

and anyway the current government has muffed up so badly that they will be knocked away by the opposition anyway
nd in my opinion if you dont vote you have no right to complain if the government turns out to be a bunch of people who are pants on head retarded.

smallharmlesskitten:
Yeah...

in New Zealand we dont have to vote but we have to be registered to vote

and anyway the current government has muffed up so badly that they will be knocked away by the opposition anyway
nd in my opinion if you dont vote you have no right to complain if the government turns out to be a bunch of people who are pants on head retarded.

Well all you really get to choose is whether to elect the guy who puts pajama pants or jeans on his head anyways...

smallharmlesskitten:

nd in my opinion if you dont vote you have no right to complain if the government turns out to be a bunch of people who are pants on head retarded.

And if your only choices are between people who fit that category?

Gavaroc:
I'd still vote for the premier of my state.

What state do you live in Gavaroc? 'Cos it can't be NSW; both Labor and Liberal suck at the moment.

- A procrastinator

Gavaroc:

smallharmlesskitten:

nd in my opinion if you dont vote you have no right to complain if the government turns out to be a bunch of people who are pants on head retarded.

And if your only choices are between people who fit that category?

What if the person you voted for got the election stolen from him? *see: 2000 election results* Me, I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm voting for McCain. Why? Because I think he can get the job done, and I respect his policies and his stances. That is my reasoning, and it should be the only necessary reasoning.

Ingenious. I never really looked at it that way, but I completely agree. Oddly enough I just turned 18 and now am allowed to vote. I'm glad I ran across this thread cause alls my parents can do is sit there and lecture me about how my vote is going to make a difference even if I decided against there political affiliation. This thread definitely made not voting so much more logical and easier to explain to my parents the reasons why I shouldn't vote. Thanks.

My pleasure.

Can you add a 'can't vote, but would' option? Curse being an underage non-American who watches all the debates and such...

Should have thought of that, but if I were to expand the poll it would be a grand total of 9 choices and that would be too much. Pretend to be 18 for the sake of this poll.

As a result of this by age 12 we understand the basics of how to vote, why we vote and why it's important to vote.

I can assure you that other countries teach this in school as well.

That said this topic is immensely complex, and you only know an extremely shallow part of it at age 12. Not that I'm the master myself, but I know enough to know how little I know.

but at the same time you really don't have grounds to tell the ignorant not to use their power, you can just teach them about it. does that make sense?

In order to make an informed decision I daresay you'll need to read half an hour serious news a day, and that is the absolute total minimum. It is not easy to just *teach* this to a population which does not wish to know about it. Mind you, there is nothing wrong in not wanting to be a part of the political system - quite to the contrary I think it is noble to keep to oneself and not bother others. But this rather large part of the population whom are political illiterates should not be encouraged to vote. This forum post is a small step in my personal vendetta against the encouragement of political illiterates.

You see, being an Australian, as jim said, we have to vote.

Im curious... How is this practiced? How does one ensure that you vote while not sacrificing a secret ballot?

And, in Australia, it's pretty simple to vote, and the parties will explain their platform and all, so, you have quite a bit of information to decide a party to vote for.

I'm sorry, but this is woefully inadequate information. It is like buying a used car based on what the car salesman says about it.

Im curious... How is this practiced? How does one ensure that you vote while not sacrificing a secret ballot?

It's ingeniously simple really, what we do is go to our local voting office, (schools mostely) where they have our names in a big book. they tick our names off and we grab the ballot papers from them. we fill in the forms and drop them off. basically all it does is show that you were there

In order to make an informed decision I daresay you'll need to read half an hour serious news a day, and that is the absolute total minimum. It is not easy to just *teach* this to a population which does not wish to know about it. Mind you, there is nothing wrong in not wanting to be a part of the political system - quite to the contrary I think it is noble to keep to oneself and not bother others. But this rather large part of the population whom are political illiterates should not be encouraged to vote. This forum post is a small step in my personal vendetta against the encouragement of political illiterates.

there's a lot of things wrong with not having a say. you are the president's boss. he is accountable to YOU and you alone. you are the people. You have to make the call to decide whether he's worthy or not. YES it's hard to make that choice, YES there's a lot of information out there that requires you to actually think and make a decision based on the issues, but there's a lot of hard work that comes from being the boss.

in the end not voting is just irresponsible. If you don't vote you have no say about what the president does/doesn't do. if you don't vote everyone has the right to hit you when you say "but he's doing it wrong"

H0ncho:
I'm sorry, but this is woefully inadequate information. It is like buying a used car based on what the car salesman says about it.

Uh, I think I've mucked up what I wanted to say. I mean, it's accessible, and that's why compulsory voting works in Australia. If you want to know the basics, watch TV. If you want to know more, than most of the information can be found on the official websites, the debates, and a range of other sources. Not saying this isn't in the US, but, I find it's quite easy to find out what each party stands for, and the details, if you want, In Australia, so compulsory voting isn't a problem here.

- A procrastinator

Edit: I agree with what jim has said above me, concerning not voting.

Id vote for the dude who put his pyjamas on his head, he sounds like hes more fun

stompy:

What state do you live in Gavaroc? 'Cos it can't be NSW; both Labor and Liberal suck at the moment.

- A procrastinator

I live in Victoria.

I'm not voting because I don't know anything. I don't know much about politics at all and even if I did, I would have to do a tremendous amount of research to not only see who I most agree with, but who's most likely to deliver the most out of what they promised. If I understood politics and history more, then I'd be more than happy to vote.

smallharmlesskitten:
in my opinion if you don't vote you have no right to complain if the government turns out to be a bunch of people who are pants on head retarded.

I see what you're saying but I look at it a bit differently. If you vote for someone incompetent, then you have no right to complain about him.

If you don't know anything about politics and refrain from voting, then you prevented the system from being poisoned with your ignorance.

those are some of my thoughts.

In Australia you get fined if you don't vote but you can do a Protest vote when you get your name ticked off and put the ballot paper straight in the box with out marking it. If enough people do that then they have to rehold the election with new candidates.

Also you don't even need ID to get a ballot paper you just point to your name on the list you could vote as anyone.

Here's the problem, and as an American, I'm woefully aware of it. I don't believe that a single candidate in the 2008 race has intentions of implementing what the TC refers to as "GOOD policies". I disagree with Hillary and Barack on too many things, and McCain has said some stuff that's made me uneasy.

If policy isn't an issue and it's just attractiveness, that's crap too. McCain is going to get tired (he's too old for the job) and start losing steam, and Hillary is a robot (look into her eyes!). From the charisma standpoint, this leaves Obama, who drives crowds wild, but has the least appealing policies. You've heard this before; no political experience, blah blah blah.

Experience isn't the issue here; he really doesn't know what to do. Just listen to him. Better yet, read Audacity of Hope, his book. He's JFK all over again. He makes glittering generalizations that don't really say anything, but get crowds all riled up. Of course, his platform is essentially the same as Hillary's (the apples don't fall far from the Democratic tree), he just plans to act on the issues in a way that strays a tad from her methods.

I truly believe McCain isn't a bad guy, but I just don't think he's what America needs right now. His aggressive stance on the Iraq war really isn't what voters are looking for right now, and there are some issues he just doesn't care about. He's too focused on Iraq, and this race really is going to come down to economics, since we're in a recession. Some economists say that the recession will be over by the end of the year, but if that IS the case, then everyone's focus is going to go back to Iraq, and they'll think "Damn, we voted for a guy who'll keep us there his entire term without trying to get away."

So I don't really consider the candidates to have "GOOD policies," and the charisma just isn't there for me. Seeing nothing attractive in the political arena, I will not participate in it this year. Or maybe I'll vote for the U.S. Taxpayers' Party or the Socialist Party or something. That'll show 'em.

Asymptote Angel:
So I don't really consider the candidates to have "GOOD policies," and the charisma just isn't there for me. Seeing nothing attractive in the political arena, I will not participate in it this year. Or maybe I'll vote for the U.S. Taxpayers' Party or the Socialist Party or something. That'll show 'em.

Yeah, I've generally voted Libertarian since Reagan, on the grounds that I'm building the Libertarian Party (and whichever idiot ends up winning, at least I can say I didn't vote for him.) But this year Libertarian appears to be Bob Barr, and I prefer my idiots to at least have a sense of humor. So I think this year I'll just write in Satan - why settle for the lesser evil? And I don't think the candidates' policies have much bearing on an election, since neither Hillary nor McCain has stated policies in line with their voting records, and as far as I can tell Obama has no stated policies at all. (Q: What do you stand for, Senator Obama? A: I stand for change! Q: What kind of change? A: The kind of change we can believe in. Q: Well, but what specifically would you change? A: Uh... We are happy warriors for change! I suppose this is a new variation of the standard political platform, that the candidate is for whatever you're for except a whole lot more of it and somebody else should pay for it.)

I should in fairness point out that the USA isn't actually in a recession, which is defined as two successive quarters of negative growth. We haven't had any quarters of negative growth in recent years, and no recession since last quarter of 2000/first quarter of 2001.

werepossum:
But this year Libertarian appears to be Bob Barr, and I prefer my idiots to at least have a sense of humor. So I think this year I'll just write in Satan - why settle for the lesser evil?

Has my avatar taught you nothing, werepossum? You can settle for nothing lesser than the Great Cthulhu.

stompy:
You see, being an Australian, as jim said, we have to vote. But, even if I was given the opportunity not to vote, I'd do it anyway, as it is my responsibility to do my part in order to ensure Australia has competent leadership. And, in Australia, it's pretty simple to vote, and the parties will explain their platform and all, so, you have quite a bit of information to decide a party to vote for.

One thing I don't like about American politics is that your presidential elections seem like popularity votes. Yes, popularity votes will play a factor, but, I was brought up believing that it was the party you vote for, not the person. If I've got the wrong impression, than please explain to me why, would you kindly.

- A procrastinator

That's basically right, but it's the major difference between a prime minister, and a President. I don't know the ins and outs of the Australian system, sad to say, but there's a good chance that you *are* voting for the party. The unfortunate truth about American politics is that ideology often takes a back seat to personality. The number of Democrats who would cut off their nose to spite their face (insofar as they would refuse to vote if their person didn't win) is absolutely staggering. They'd rather see someone who completely disagrees with them in office, than swallow their pride, and vote for the person closest to their interests.

As Bill Clinton put it: "Democrats want to fall in love, Republicans fall in line"

Saskwach:

werepossum:
But this year Libertarian appears to be Bob Barr, and I prefer my idiots to at least have a sense of humor. So I think this year I'll just write in Satan - why settle for the lesser evil?

Has my avatar taught you nothing, werepossum? You can settle for nothing lesser than the Great Cthulhu.

Like I can spell that in a voting booth!

I vote if only so I have the right to complain, either that everything would be less fucked if my guy had won, or that man, my candidate turned out to be a lying, incompetant douchebag (I hear this from a few Republicans who are now all *facepalm* over having supported the Bush administration, and I know some lefties who did the same over Clinton), or that my candidate is a shining paragon who is being hamstrung by the evil opposition in Congress. However it plays out, if I didn't value my opinion enough to express it in the ballot box, I don't get to declare it to be solid gold after the election is done.

I'm an Australian, and my birthday is early December. Our last Federal Election took place roughly a week before my 18th birthday. I would have loved to vote. I followed the debates, watched the press club addresses, noted the polls, and yet, my opinion was totally invalid because of my age. In fact, a mate of mine who's birthday is in September (we're both born the same year) literally didn't vote. He protested the similarity of the parties that we had to vote for, and took the fine intentionally. His opinion was as well formed as mine, and while I disagree with his decision, his was more valid than mine according to the Government. This... annoys me. But it's not quite the point of this thread.

There's an effect of people not voting that noone's yet discussed here, I think. I honestly don't know how it applies to the apparently murky system of politics that is American Democracy, but one thing that'll happen if most people don't vote is that loud minorities begin to have political influence, which can be a serious problem. By "loud minorities", I mean groups of people with nonstandard ideals (for example, pro-firearms in a country with restricted access to firearms, or something like that), but a faithful, if small, following that plans to vote. It can allow parties with uncommon policies to gain power. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be. I don't know how serious this effect would be, but I always percieved it as a major reason why voting is compulsory in Australia when I wondered about it. If everyone votes, then common standards will be maintained by the elected Government. That's what I always thought, anyway.

That said, the two leading parties in Australia are quite similar. Relative to what I can tell about the Democrats and Republicans, that is. So perhaps this wouldn't work in the USA. I dunno.

Just some thoughts.

Oh, and werepossum,

werepossum:
Like I can spell [Cthulhu] in a voting booth!

It's significantly harder to say that word than it is to spell it.

I live in a city called Wollongong and there is an interesting story behind this.

In Australia when you vote for the PM you have many different political parties to choose from. The two main political parties are Liberal and Labour. There are other parties such as The Greens, The Democrats and One nation (boo hiss). Well anyway you choose who will lead the country by choosing what Party you like, the leader of the winning party becomes the PM. But in a Federal Election you don't vote for what Party will rule the country you vote for what party rules your local area.

Anyway as I was saying I live in Wollongong and the local council (A Labor council) was found to be corrupt. Really corrupt! A building planner was sleeping with members of the council to get building plans permitted for crying out loud. It was a steaming hot bed of corruption. Well the council members have all been fired and I believe that a new council has been placed as representatives.

The annoying thing is that people do not care about what leader and what party will be best for their local area, instead they look at elections as popularity contests (Kevin 07 t-shirts anyone). Well labour is the most popular Party at the moment (and will stay this way) until the next election. Well people are going to reelect the corrupt council because labour is seen (I wish I was joking) as the good guys. Hence the corrupt council is seen as the good guys.

This is why I don't hold much faith in the voting system. Far too easily corrupted by flashy ads and scare tactics.

Saskwach:

werepossum:
But this year Libertarian appears to be Bob Barr, and I prefer my idiots to at least have a sense of humor. So I think this year I'll just write in Satan - why settle for the lesser evil?

Has my avatar taught you nothing, werepossum? You can settle for nothing lesser than the Great Cthulhu.

Nah, Steve McQueen has a better tax benifits. Vote 1 Steve McQueen!

Anyways, I'm an Aussie and we have to vote. Also I really don't give two stuffs about the American election. Why is it being so advertised to the world? Why not the Indonesian election?

Fenixius:

That said, the two leading parties in Australia are quite similar.

You mean similar in terms of government style or similar because their leading ministers in the last election looked exactly the same, give or take two decades? I'd agree with both statements.

Oh, and is it not pronounced cuh-thool-hoo?

@PurpleRain,

PurpleRain:
Also I really don't give two stuffs about the American election. Why is it being so advertised to the world? Why not the Indonesian election?

Because it's important. It may affect the course of the world as a whole. America has a lot of sway right now in terms of global political power. They also happen to be involved in the preeminent war that's taking place, and a change of leadership there might affect that war.

@Fire Dæmon,

Fire Daemon:
But in a Federal Election you don't vote for what Party will rule the country you vote for what party rules your local area.

The number of parliamentary seats given to each party is directly derived from the number of electorates, which are the local areas that Daemon mentioned. So people are naturally concerned about the large-scale ruling of the nation. Which is why there's a problem with the system. People who want to vote, say, Labor, for the nation, but want a Liberal government for their electorate are kind of screwed over.

@Gavaroc,
I actually was referring to the last election. I've not really payed any attention to any before this one just gone. As I said, I'm only recently 18.

That said, I've been sort of impressed by Kevin Rudd so far. He's following through on what he said he'd do, and he's been doing all these local gatherings, so people can meet with him and discuss whatever they want. However, this is getting off topic. This isn't about Australian Politics, it's about why people should/shouldn't vote.

Also, while I do pronounce it as you said, "kuh-THOOL-hoo", I think I'm wrong. It's supposed to be sort of gurrural and growled, as it's not a word that was designed for human tongues.

Kevin who? I don't know what you're talking about... By the way, has anyone noticed how John Howard's looking so much younger these days?
...
Yeah, that was a joke. I'll stop now.

Anyway, this topic is about politics, and because most of the forum members seem to be Australian, there's nothing off-topic about going into Aussie politics. Or any other country's politics for that matter.

Personally, I'd much prefer to have this guy running the country than any other politician I've heard of in Australia or the U.S.
http://www.maxforpresident.org/

Ultrajoe:
The american system is a bit weird to me, but i'm in Australian...

the main thing that confuse me are thus:

1) are there more than 2 parties? because we get some american news channels here on Foxtel (cable, and you guys don't show much foreign news) and all that ever comes up is the Republicans and the Democrats, or are those other parties just given very little attention due to lack of funding ect?

2) why are the mascots and elephant and a donkey?
2a) if one of the mascots is indeed a donkey and i'm not just horribly animal blind... why are their so little 'ass' jokes around?

3) Is someone's political affiliation such a big deal in real american life? it comes across like that from some of your TV (which is basically our TV, whatever your drawbacks as a nation, Australian programs just don't have the same kick as CSI, though 'underbelly' (drama based on gang activity) is quite good, if thats your taste)

4) How do the 'primaries' work? its confusing me mad when Colbert keeps mentioning them instead of interviewing some poor sod, and im sitting here feeling ignorant.

Not really election questions...

5) do you guys really have to recite the pledge of allegiance every day in primary school?

6) does your media give you the opinion that australians ride kangaroos? i swear i get asked this in every online game.

7) do you find the Australian accent attractive? no real reason... its just a question that occasionaly crops up in the jumble that is my mind

feel free to insult my ignorance, but i would like the opinions of someone similar to myself from across the sea... (we're an island, and a continent, and a nation, and oddly enough still a constitutional monarchy (apathy ftw!)... forgive our confusion, its a natural state of mind.)

1) There are many parties in the USA, but the system is heavily weighted toward the two main parties. Just getting your candidate on the ballot can be extremely difficult, and if you can do that in many states the candidates other than Republican and Democrat usually are listed as Independents. Funding is a part, but mostly it's the system itself. Even when the parties were different - Whig, Federalist, Greenback, Bull Moose (yes, I'm serious) - the system soon squeezes itself back into two parties. Much of this is due to the Electoral College, an elaborate system set up to protect small states from being dominated by large states. Electoral votes are apportioned by population, but each state gets two additional. Therefore sparsely populated Wyoming gets three, not one. A presidential election must be won by an absolute majority of electoral votes or selection goes to the House of Representatives, so three or more parties receiving electoral college votes could cause political chaos.

It gets even better - The Republican Party (the party of limited government which grew the federal government faster during 2001 - 2006 than ever before) and the Democrat Party (the party of the litle guy which is dominated by multimillionaires) used to be the same party, until the mid-nineteenth century. They split over slavery - Republicans split off to oppose it, Democrats favored it. And each pretends to adopt the other's positions if it thinks the wind's blowing that way. Besides those two we also have the Green Party (supposedly dedicated to protecting the environment, our Green Party is dedicated to Socialism with a capital 'S') and the Libertarian Party (the party supposedly dedicated to personal liberty and small government but mostly interested in legalizing drugs.) And then there are oodles of splinter parties - mostly issue parties, dedicated to opposing or promoting a particular issue, without any chance of attaining power but with a small chance of acting as a spoiler for the party closest to their own viewpoint by siphoning off votes. So don't feel bad if it's not clear. People say American politics is like herding cats, but that's wrong; cats don't lie.

2) I have no idea why those were chosen, but I suspect the jokes have gotten stale over the decades.

3) Political affiliation CAN be a big deal, but isn't necessarily. For instance, in our city almost all the engineers are Republican, while the architects are about evenly split; we still work together, and only Occassionally look at the other as if he'd sprouted another head. Whether it's a big deal depends on how strongly you feel about some hot-button issues such as the right to bear arms (Republicans favor, Democrats oppose) or the right to an abortion (Democrats favor, at public expense, Republicans oppose.) It also depends somewhat on how you relate to other issues like tax rates, the optimum size of government, and the function of government. It can be important if some issue greatly affects your life. For instance, if you're gay and someone refused to rent his garage apartment to you, the Democratic platform of non-discrimination at any level might lead you to be a Democratic activist. Conversely if you refused to rent your garage apartment to a gay tenant who later successfully sues you claiming discrimination (or if the government makes you rent it to him), you might become a Republican activist. Sexual orientation can be a hot-button issue between gays (and sympathizers) who feel they need more protection and/or special rights, and conservatives who feel that sexual orientation should not convey special rights or laws, or even that discriminization against gays is acceptable in certain circumstances. (This is usually driven by religious views, but oddly enough some of the most virulently anti-gay people I know are otherwise good Democrats. Go figure. It's also worth pointing out that although homosexuality is pounded pretty good in the Old Testament, it's not something Jesus touched on at all. So for Christians the religious prohibition is pretty tenuous to me, anyway.) In general, Republicans tend to want smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, and conservative values - no sex education in school, traditional married families favored over non-traditional (which can be anything from gay to single mother to living together) families - and at least pay lip service to a government which only does for the populace what the populace absolutely can't do for itself. In general, Democrats tend to want larger, more inclusive government, higher taxes (especially on the more successful), and progressive values - sex education in school, government-mandated acceptance of non-traditional roles such as gay - and want a government which provides for the common good by taking money away from more affluent people and giving it to poorer people, enacting laws to protect poor or powerless people, providing public money for the arts, and generally redressing perceived wrongs in society. Republicans fight crime by putting criminals in jail; Democrats fight crime by attacking "root causes" such as poverty and favor community programs and shorter sentences. It's been said that a Republican is just a Democrat who's been arrested and a Democrat is just a Republican who's been mugged, so you can see the confusion in the system.

4) Primaries are even more odd than our general elections. A primary is a mini election within each state, used to determine each party's candidate. Each state and territory is allocated a certain number of delegates (who are elected to go to the party's convention and cast electoral votes) based on its population and its perceived usefulness to the party's chances of success in the general election. Some states allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all popular vote; others allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all vote by number of districts (a voting block smaller than a state or county)won, and in some the state's electoral votes are allocated proportionally according to each candidate's percentage of the popular vote OR each candidate's share of precincts. Each state Republican and Democrat party is free to determine its method of allocating the delegates (primary electoral votes.) Thus this year New York and New Jersey, two states which are almost always won by the Democrat candidate, went winner-take-all and had a huge effect in selecting the Republican nominee.

Some states don't even use a primary election at all: they use a caucus, in which speakers argue for each candidate and voters then go stand in a particular spot to cast their "vote" for a particular candidate. Caucuses are more prone to picking candidates from the core of the party (hard left or hard right) since they take more time and everyone sees how you voted. Caucus voters may also change their minds during the process, so some good old-fashioned horsetrading takes place. Perhaps you'd like "A" to be the candidate, but you'll switch your vote to "C" to keep the old SOB "B" from winning.

But wait, it gets better! One state (Texas) uses both; first you go vote, then if you want you can go caucus. If you are dedicated enough to go through the caucus afterwards, then in effect you get two votes (although the caucus allocates only 1/3 of the electoral votes.) Then you have super delegates - only the Democrats use them, but about 1/5 of the Democrat delegates are not popularly selected at all, but are party officials and elected officials of that party, and can vote any way they want. Thus the confusion in this year's Democrat primary season; since mathematically neither candidate is going to accumulate enough electoral votes to win the nomination, the candidate will be selected by party officials. And many states don't have first-ballot laws, so you can say you'll vote for one candidate and then vote for another. (This very, very seldom happens.)

As if that's not enough of a clusterf-ck, there is a tradition as to which states vote first. In a year in which the nominee is selected early, states that vote late have no say at all in the primary. This year many states moved their primaries up in an attempt to have a say in selecting the nominees. Two states, Michigan and Florida, were punished for moving their primaries up too far. The Republicans removed half their delegates (electoral votes), whilst the Democrats removed all their delegates. The Republican candidates still campaigned in those states, but the Democrats did not. (All candidates except Hillary removed their names from the ballot in Michigan; in Florida all the names were on the ballot, but no Democrat actively campaigned there, and no Florida-only ads ran.) There will probably be a lawsuit or three on whether delegates from these states will get to vote in the Democratic convention, where the actual candidate is selected. And just to make it really juicy, the Florida primary date was set by the state legislature - which is controlled by the Republicans! (I should also mention that in some states primaries are funded and controlled by the states, whereas in others the parties fund and control them.)

So if you're feeling ignorant, you are officially pardoned. No one should know that much about another country's politics.

5) When I was a child we did. Later it was abolished. It pops up from time to time and goes back and forth. Republicans want to instate it to prove their patriotism; Democrats want to abolish it to prove theirs. Go figure.

6) Not really. I wasn't under the impression that any surviving kangeroos were large enough to be ridden, and assumed they were protected three ways from Sunday by the government. Maybe it's some kind of cartoon or anime giving people that idea?

7) Oh yeah. At the World's Fair (1980 maybe?) at the Australian pavilion there was a very cute young lady giving the speech, and I was so enthralled my listening to her accent that I later realized I'd heard nothing she said. So I went through again and got the dog and pony show.

EDIT: Added item 6 response.

Ultrajoe:
2) why are the mascots and elephant and a donkey?
2a) if one of the mascots is indeed a donkey and i'm not just horribly animal blind... why are their so little 'ass' jokes around?

I've never gotten that. At least our mascots make senes. Both are Australian animals and neither can walk backwards. Symbolic and homegrown. Now an Elephant? It's grey like their morals? *boom tish*

PurpleRain:

Ultrajoe:
2) why are the mascots and elephant and a donkey?
2a) if one of the mascots is indeed a donkey and i'm not just horribly animal blind... why are their so little 'ass' jokes around?

I've never gotten that. At least our mascots make senes. Both are Australian animals and neither can walk backwards. Symbolic and homegrown. Now an Elephant? It's grey like their morals? *boom tish*

Put me in the "doesn't get it" crowd. Honestly, the democrats are all asses, the republicans are Dumbos and no one's picked this comedy goldmine up?