The US is a federal system.  Primary elections were only instituted in the early 20th century, and are subject to state law.  Different states have different laws, and they always have.

The poor, blacks, and women have all at one time or another been disenfrachised.  Up until the 1840's various states required citizens to hold a certain amount of land property in order to vote.  This led to actual political warfare, that being the kind involving guns and militias, in Rhode Island in 1841 or 1842, called the Dorr Rebellion.  Rhode Island then had a law requiring the ownership of property worth $134 to vote.  By the 1840's this had disenfranchised all but 40% of the white males in the state.  

The story of how the abolition of class limitations on voting changed America is largely unknown, but the story of who women and blacks became able to vote is much better known.

Back to my point.  The DNC can't tell states what to do, they can only threaten to decertify delegates.  And that creates the potential for the final say on the nominee to be determined by superdelegates.  And it also, may force Iowa and New Hampshire to move back their calendars.  So far as I know, there's nothing prohibiting Iowa and New Hampshire from moving back as early as November 9, 2007.

It's a mess, and it's going to be very dependent on Dean as the DNC chair to clean up.  I don't envy his position.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

In America, both the President and Vice President are elected.  It's known when you vote that the VP will replace the President if the President cannot perform his or her duties.  So you go into the voting booth knowing that.  Apparently it's also a fine way of keeping a country from impeaching the President: pick a nasty VP...

And every 4 years there is an election.  

When Tony Blair was elected, did people know Gordon Brown would be his successor if Blair stepped down?  Or could Blair pick anyone he chose, so long as they were of the Labor party?

Also, I don't understand the term limits.  Do they have them?  Why could Blair step down and appoint a successor instead of having to serve out a term at the end of which would be a general election?  They have something like "confidence" votes, right?  To see if they can stay on?  And if they win, then the only thing that prevents them from stepping down and putting a friend in charge is a Parliamentary election?  Are those done on a regular schedule?  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

But when it comes to core issues, which are more or less the same as the ones in the US - health care and education, economic policy, foreign policy - ordinary people are completely disenfranchised.

We aren't given the choice to vote for populist, bottom-up policies. The rules are set by Big Money, Big Oil, and Big Death, and they're the ones who are steering the ship.

We're allowed to rearrange the deck chairs. But we're not allowed to avoid the rocks or join the pillage party in the big ballroom.

Bill Wyatt is a liberal Republican and was a candidate for the U.S. Republican Party presidential nomination, 2004. He is a 43-year-old T-shirt maker and father of three from California. Wyatt left the Democratic Party to become a Republican after Democrats voted for the war in Iraq, an action he saw as a betrayal. He hopes to have a greater voice as a member of the Republican Party.

Wyatt has traveled 12,000 miles and spent an estimated $20,000 on his Presidential campaign. He managed to qualify for ballot status in New Hampshire, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, and even the Democratic Primary ballot in Arizona.

His early showings were disheartening but not surprising. He finished tenth in the New Hampshire primary with 0.23% of the vote (153 votes).

However, a major upset occurred on Mini-Tuesday when Wyatt won just over 10% of the vote in Oklahoma. He also placed second in Missouri, where he gained 1,268 votes (1.03%). Wyatt also received 233 votes (0.10%) in the Arizona Democratic primary.

Wyatt has stated that the Louisiana primary was his last stand, since it was the final state where he qualified for ballot status. He gained 4% of the vote there, which he considered a symbolic victory against George W. Bush that sent a message to the Republican Party. Wyatt has declared that he will be a candidate in the 2008 presidential election.

What was particulary interesting was his failed attempts to get on the primary ballots in the first place. The reason he ran in the Arizona Democratic primary was that the republican was cancelled because of lack of other candidates then Bush. That he was a republican and wanted to participated did not matter (this was also the case in a number of other states). So he ran in the Arizona Democratic primary to get more votes then Bush in Arizona.

To be a candidate for the presidency in the US you apparently have to be a candidate accepted by the media or have enough money to be buy media time. As a comparision: to be a candidate for the presidency of Iran you have to be acceptable to a group of mullahs (or possibly buy their acceptance).

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

Independents often stand and occasionally win. One of the best moments of the last election was watching the father of someone who died in Iraq laying into Blair in public on election night, because he'd stood as an independent in Blair's constituency and won a good proportion of the votes.

But generally it's the party machine that keeps things running, and parties are very definitely run top-down - to the extent that Westminster is almost irrelevant anyway.

I think in the US the barriers to enter a party's primary are as low as simply having to change your partisan voter registration.

Yes, compare Michael Bloomberg (mayor of New York, and this week's media fascination as he coyly denies that he's running for President). Since he couldn't win the mayoral primary in his own party (the Democrats), he registered Republican and won that way. (At least that's how Newsweek reports it.) This is not seen as unfair, just unusual; it's up to the primary voters to decide whether they accept it.

Nowadays it's worse as there's a professional political class who have been working as advisers and media consultnts for years till they get parachuted into safe constituencies. Jobs for the boys (and it usually is boys)

keep to the Fen Causeway

Party membership is very small and it's really hard to join and make a difference because the local party will essentially be a clique (or a few of them).

Also, note that party membership implies paying dues. There is no equivalent of partisan voter registration and voluntary involvement from outside the party is minimal. And, in addition, public finance of campaigns means that parties don't need to (and often can't really) reach out for donations.

A question about the US: what is the difference between a sympathiser, a registered voter, a volunteer helper, a donor, a dues-paying card-carrying member, and a member of the apparatus of the party? Which categories are important and which are not (or are even nonexistent?)

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

The ability of new political parties to form and to share power in all levels of government shows the difference between the two countries.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

you are the media you consume.