The United States are known to have a rather sophisticated electoral system, which appears extremely convoluted to Europeans (Rundbrief 12/2000). This process begins with the so-called primaries (internal party elections). Between January and June of the election year, the official candidate of each party is determined through primaries in almost all American states.

This is done either through "open primaries" or "closed primaries." The open variant allows any eligible voter to cast their vote for their favored Republican or Democratic candidate, while in closed primaries, the voter must be a registered member of the respective party to participate in the party's internal primary election.

Then, in some states, such as Iowa, there is the alternative of "caucuses." You should think of a "caucus" as events at a lower political level where delegates are elected to support a specific preferred candidate at various regional and national party conventions.

Until the 1960s, there were only primary elections in 10 to 12 states, which were considered mere indicators of public opinion before the national party conventions. The delegates had the final say on the nomination of the presidential candidate. Nowadays, everything is decided on "Super Tuesday" in March, when populous states like California and New York hold their primaries. As a result, the nomination at the national party conventions in the summer is increasingly becoming a formality. For those aligned with the Republican Party, there was no worry this year anyway, as Bush had no opponent within his own party. Among the Democrats, Kerry eventually won, although Howard Dean was initially considered the favorite.

We have been seeing an election campaign conducted at tabloid level for months now. It's enough to make you cry. Initially, there was no more important question than who had the better head of hair: Kerry or Bush. Then, some eager journalists, close to the tabloid press, began to speculate whether Kerry was using Botox to smooth out his wrinkles.

The wives of the two candidates are also preferred targets. Teresa Heinz Kerry is considered too outspoken and generally suspicious by the conservative press, as she is the millionaire heiress of the Heinz ketchup empire. In contrast, Laura Bush deliberately plays the role of the homemaker.

In the meantime, the smear campaign shifted to more political topics. Since Bush boasts of being a war President who protected America from terrorists with a firm hand, Kerry cannot lag behind. He needs to prove that he can fulfill the role of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces as President. What better suits him than his Vietnam experience? After all, Kerry returned from the war zone in the seventies as a decorated soldier and had even volunteered. In contrast, Bush served in the National Guard on American soil.

A plus for Kerry in gathering votes from Vietnam veterans. Americans have a thing with Vietnam anyway. The trauma still runs deep in their bones. However, some cheeky former Vietnam comrades of Kerry, who have given themselves the name "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," claim in a TV commercial that Kerry's heroic deeds are just hot air. The New York Times then reported that the TV commercial was co-financed by people close to the Bush family. So the country is occupied with the truthfulness of old hero stories instead of discussing current issues. Sigh!

But who will win the election? Michael always drives me crazy with his gloomy predictions that Bush will emerge as the clear winner. I believe the country is completely divided, and there will be a neck-and-neck race in November with an extremely close election outcome. Kerry is stumbling over the same obstacles as Gore. He wants to please everyone, which makes him seem completely wishy-washy--a trait that Americans do not like at all.

For many Democrats in San Francisco, however, Kerry is not left-wing enough, although most here would vote for anyone as long as their name isn't Bush. Everything depends on voter turnout, which in the USA is typically only 50%. The Democrats are primarily trying to get young voters to the polls, as the turnout in the 18 to 24-year-old age group is abysmal. In the last election in 2000, it was a mere 36%.

In our neighborhood, young people from the "Democratic National Committee" have been collecting money for weeks to go door-to-door in the so-called "swing states" (states that sometimes vote Republican, sometimes Democratic) to encourage their peers to vote.

The crucial question remains: Why do so many Americans still support Bush? Even if one overlooks the foreign policy disaster in Iraq, there is plenty to criticize domestically. The average American is significantly worse off under Bush: they often have to deal with a lower-paying job while facing astronomically rising healthcare costs and a high personal debt burden. Nevertheless, many follow Bush like the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Oh, sometimes this country just drives me to despair.

• More topics you might be interested in:

  	Moving in the USA
  	Free Stuff
  	Incident In the Netscape Parking Lot
  	Democracy Through Propositions
  	The Lost Coast Part II.
  	Divine Love Whispers
  	Copy-Protected CDs
  	The newsletter top product

  
  

• More topics you might be interested in:

  	Moving in the USA
  	Free Stuff
  	Incident In the Netscape Parking Lot
  	Democracy Through Propositions
  	The Lost Coast Part II.
  	Divine Love Whispers
  	Copy-Protected CDs
  	The newsletter top product