Miscellaneous desk
< February 14	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 15[edit]

US presidential election question[edit]

In America, how do people get to be a presidential candidate for a political party? My question is prompted by the reports that the Republican party does not really want Donald Trump to stand as a candidate for them. Nevertheless, he is doing so, so how did this happen? Why was he accepted if the party doesn't want him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.224.55 (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC) (PS, I understand that he isn't yet the final choice of candidate for president. I understand that part, so there is no need to explain it.)[reply]

The primary elections and caucuses currently underway are how the parties chose their candidates for the election. Many state parties do not have any party membership requirements, whoever shows up and takes a ballot is part of the party. Ballot access explains a little of the process but each state (and state party) is different, gathering signatures may be required, paying a filing fee, registering with the Federal Election Committee. Rmhermen (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "takes a ballot"? (I am not asking about who can vote but who can stand.) I looked at Ballot access, but it is long and daunting and I can't understand its relevance. It says "Each U.S. State has its own ballot access laws", and then there is a long list of per-state detail, but I don't understand how this applies to my question. Trump is standing across the whole country, not just in one state. There must be a country-wide procedure whereby he can stand as a Republican. That is what I want to know. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think there "must be a country-wide procedure" be? As I understand it, there isn't. The fact that Trump is "standing across the whole country, not just in one state" is largely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the reason why Trump is standing across the whole country is not because there's some country wide procedure, but because he can afford to pay the people and attract the supporters who'll make sure he is eligible to stand in every "one state". Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion in the US Republican Party about a need to change the nomination process to prevent people who aren't really Republicans from running. Presumably that would involve something like what we call superdelegates to decide who can run in the Republican primary. Unfortunately, there seem to be many people who vote Republican who don't want a traditional Republican candidate, so that might mean they would no longer vote Republican, if people like Trump were excluded. On the other hand, if people like Trump win the nomination, they aren't likely to win the general election, so the Republican Party is in a tough position either way. (Personally I think they need to cut the "tea party" contingent loose, to form their own tiny party, and hopefully the Republicans could then pick up more moderates from the US Democratic Party and the independents.) StuRat (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you say "change the nomination process", but what is the existing nomination process? That is my question. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC) PS, in case there is still confusion, I am not asking about how the primary elections and caucuses work. I am asking how people get their names on the candidate lists that people vote on in the primary elections and caucuses. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that Trump is standing across the whole country, not just in one state. Actually, he is standing (running as we Americans say) separately in each state. Each state sends delegates to the national Republican convention, and the delegates there vote for who should be the national party's candidate. So the candidate tries to win as many delegates as possible in each state, according to the rules of that state. Loraof (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So someone like Trump would need to go through 50 state-specific procedures in order to get on the ballot in all 50 states? 109.152.148.126 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Which is why one occasionally has serious "candidates" that fail to the get on the ballot on all of the states. The participation requirements vary widely. New Hampshire is one of the most liberal states, and anyone can stand in the primary by paying $1000 and declaring they want to represent the party. Which is why there were 30 Republicans and 28 Democrats on the ballot [1]. Dragons flight (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you very much. I didn't realise it was state-by-state. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get some clarity here...we're talking about how you get to become a candidate to enter the race to become the party nominee for the presidential race...in other words, how do you get to the position that Trump, Cruz, et al are at right now?

First, you're supposed to set up an exploratory committee to and a political action committee - people within your chosen party assess whether you have the ability to raise funds and capture attention. When those groups raise $5,000 - you have 15 days to file a "Statement of Candidacy"...and then 10 days more to file a "Statement of organization". These things are about legally collecting and spending money as a candidate.

To be honest - it's still not clear how those committees are formed and who has to be on them. SteveBaker (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, only $5000 ? That's not much of a barrier. I'm guessing that's a very old standard, set when that was a bit harder. So now we have the situation where pretty much anyone can run (and I do mean anyone !). StuRat (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bugs~~ Stu, I think you and Steve are talking a bit at cross-purposes here. The $5000, if I've understood correctly, is not a barrier to be achieved. It's a threshold at which US elections laws and regulations begin to apply to you. Presumably, if you somehow could run a campaign for $4999, you would be much freer in how to conduct it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That raises a possibly interesting question: Could someone, theoretically, be running in both parties? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many states require candidates sign some form of a statement of allegiance to the party in order to participate on the party's ballot and prohibit candidates from participating in multiple parties simultaneously. People do occasionally try this though, e.g. [2]. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveBaker, when you talk of raising $5,000 and filing statements, do you believe that this is a state-by-state process or one process that covers the entire country? 109.152.148.126 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Answered above. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are requirements under Federal campaign finance laws. Nothing to do with getting your name on a state ballot. Rmhermen (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems to be different again. So you're saying there is a federal procedure first whereby "people within your chosen party assess whether you have the ability to raise funds and capture attention" etc., and then there are the state-by-state procedures too? I wonder how Trump got through the first stage? I mean, I'm sure he has the funds and can "capture attention", but could he not have been blocked under some pretext if the party did not want him? 109.152.148.126 (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no national party to block him - there are 57 state and territorial parties for each. See Politics of the United States#Organization of American political parties. What the state parties want is what the primaries determine. Rmhermen (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that useful link. From the perspective of someone in the UK, it is all quite strange and unexpected. Over here, candidates are chosen by political parties (or are independent). You cannot simply declare that you are representing a party without their endorsement. 81.152.224.34 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be the case in America that the "party bosses" decided on the presidential candidates, but the process has become more democratic since then. The downside of that approach is that by the time the conventions are held, (1) the candidate is already known; and (2) the party can be stuck with a candidate who is unlikely to win the election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to start is with the fact that the Constitution makes no provision for parties or primaries, whatsoever. The President is elected by the Electoral College, with each state determining by its own laws how its votes (based on the number of Senators and Representives it has) are determined. In the beginning, this was primarily according to the state legislatures, and usually on a winner-takes-all basis. The Constitution has no say in this.

As time passed, a two-party system arose, largely because the state and federal legislatures did not encourage the multiparty coalition-forming governments. Given that the parties are (quasi-)private organizations, they can set their own rules, and it used to be at state party conventions that candidates would stump for support, but the bosses might make their own decisions in back rooms, especially in brokered conventions.

Eventually, after the Civil War, and during the Progressive Era, the two major parties passed (widely varying) state laws providing for publicly subsidized primaries, and they provided automatic ballot access to themselves by requiring that, as in the example of New York, smaller parties have to reestablish their qualification for a slate on the ballot if they did not meet a certain threshold: Qualified New York political parties.

Basically, the primary system as it exists is a criminal conspiracy by the state Democratic and Republican election committees to make sure they retain the seemingness of legitimacy by holding publicly subsidized public votes, while making it hugely expensive for third parties to get a ballot spot. New York requires candidates to get a large number of verifiable petition signatures in each county for a candidate to appear. These signatures are regularly challenged by major-party functionaries, and disqualified on the smallest of technicalities.

Even major-party challengers are kept of the ballot at the state level. For example, there was no 1992 Republican Party presidential primary in New York, although Pat Buchanan ran as president against the incumbent GHWB. This was challenged in court, and although the primaries were held in public buildings and at public expense, Bush's operatives kept Buchanan of the ballot in many states.[3]

Even at the Federal level, the game is rigged. Even the "non-partisan" (i.e., three Democrats and three Republicans) Federal Election Commission sets and breaks its own rules. In the 1992 election, Independence Party candidate Ross Perot was allowed to take part in the presidential debates. A decision was set that in the future, any candidate polling at 5% or more would be allowed to participate in the general election debates. Then, before the first debate was scheduled between Clinton and Bob Dole in 1996, it was announced by the FEC that they would not allow him on stage, even though he was polling over 10%, because he was not a "serious" candidate.[4]

The party system in the US is corrupt, and rigged in favor of the two major parties.

μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am buying a new refrigerator. Do I tip the delivery men?[edit]

I am buying a new refrigerator. Regular, standard size. The company (Lowe's) will have it delivered and will haul away my old refrigerator. It has to be delivered up a flight of stairs to the second floor of the house. Do I "tip" these delivery men? How much? I have no idea if I do and how much I do. I assume they will send two guys, not just one? These are not Lowe's employees; I believe that Lowe's simply contracts with a delivery service company. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There will almost certainly be two people. In Germany, I'd tip them EUR 20 (but I'm generous, it's not really required, and EUR 10 might be more common). In the US, tips are normally higher than in Germany, but if you hand them US$20, they will probably be happy. If you are elsewhere, I'm out of my comfort zone ;-). In any case, it certainly also depends on what you can easily afford. If you plan to tip, it's a lot less awkward if you have bills for the exact amount (or a range of amounts, depending on quality of service) at hand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I once lived in a motel for two weeks and didn't tip anything because I couldn't afford to. I think this is why my phone charger was stolen. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would not occur to me to tip someone for this sort of delivery unless they did something extra special, and carrying the shipment up one flight of stairs does not count. I'm in Canada, by the way. However. here are a number of opinions from people in the US, including some who disagree with me. --69.159.9.222 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If I liked the service, I might tip them lunch money, i.e. 5 to 10 dollars each. More if they go above and beyond the call of duty. But if they refuse the tip, I wouldn't fight them. If you're really concerned, call the store and see if there's any sort of policy about it. Although, obviously, what you do behind closed doors is up to you. At the very least, though, offer them some cold water before they leave. They'll probably have their own, but the gesture will be appreciated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

When I had my posturepedic delivered, I asked the guy in charge, "Que prefieren como propina, ¿mota, o efectivo?" The response was, "¡Los dos!" So they got a five each and a fat spliff to share. The basic rule is that delivery people work on tips, those who charge the customer themselves directly by the hour for "labor" {such as plumbers and electricians) don't. μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain you'd offer them a cup of tea, you wouldn't tip them and you wouldn't supply them with illegal drugs. DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's legal in Colorado, Oregon, Alaska and Washington (both kinds of Washington) (Template:Cannabis in the United States). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a good joke, Duncan, given that when my parents travelled Great Britain in the previous decade, everyone was smoking pot, and much more openly than in Manhattan. Perhaps "illegal drugs" means something else across the pond? In any case, if you want to offer your erstwhile servants a diuretic, rather than cash and/or weed, do please feel free to tilt your nose upwards. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]