I'm no expert on the American political system, but my classes do "compare and contrast" the workings of various democracies and try and see which systems work "best" - if there is such a thing.

This question came up in our discussion about the upcoming American "mid-term" elections.

The question was "Which districts have elections that occur between the ones that happen at the same time as the
Presidential elections?" "How did this selection come about?"

The next questions were "How does this effect the electoral results in those districts?" "Do they usually support the President's party, or do they usually oppose his party - historically speaking."

In other words, how do mid-term elections tend to differ from the ones that occur with the Presidential elections?

Thanks in advance to anyone who'll takes a stab at this.

Mid terms function as a report card for the governing party. Occasionally, as in 1994, the governing party loses control of the legislature.

Normally, however, if the President's party loses ground in the midterms, the president adjusts his priorities in order to get an "A" on the final exam (re-election).

Did that answer the questions?

BMT

The House Seats are on two-year terms, the President on a four-year term, and the Senate on 6-year terms. So every two years all House members and one third of Senate members stand for election. Those years when the President is not running are referred to as the mid term years. So there is no "choosing" as to which districts are up for election.

I will let the political science wonks address the question of whether mid-terms tend historically to support the party in the White House. One thing I do know is that it is relatively rare to have the House, the Senate, and the White House controlled by the same party.

Thanks,

You really helped! Now I understand - so, my students will soon know too. Sounds like a pretty good system, all things considered.

And the Supreme Court, don't forget.

(Yes, I know, SCJs aren't affiliated with political parties. Bullcrap. Of course they are.)

Back in 1994, the Republicans told us, "We can't do anything unless we control the Senate too." We said, "Why not? The Democrats do!" But we gave 'em the Senate anyway.

Then they said, "We can't do anything unless we control the Presidency too!" We said, "Why not? The Democrats do!" But we gave 'em the Presidency anyway.

Then they said, "We can't do anything unless we control the Supreme Court too!" We said, "Why not? The Democrats do!" But we gave 'em the Supreme Court anyway.

Then they said, "We can't do anything unless we control the media too!" We said, "Why not? The Democrats do!" But we gave 'em their own cable TV news channel and the top three talk radio shows in the country anyway.

[Punch line left as an exercise for the reader]

Barak, that makes me laugh out loud.

In Canada, whenever a conservative right-of-center politician has problems - it's always blamed on the "left-wing media" - which of course - has all those "liberal" reporters. But, whenever a left-of-center politician has problems - it's always blamed on the "corporate-controlled media" - in which, of course - all the reporters have to kow-tow to their big-business owner's private interests.

Maybe you better take BC's course. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

SOOO, the logical deduction is that all politicians are LIARS, geezuzmurphee, THAT is a frikken REVELATION!!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Barak, my learned friend; you need to relax and save your energy for your Cairos function this weekend. You haven't got through your t-shirt display as of yet. If I'm off by a weekend--forgive me, I was out of town. If it's this weekend, good luck with all of it. PS--Quit trying to frighten BCBRIAN'S kids!!!

This is one of the most entertaining political (election) discussions I've seen in a while!

Have to agree with everyone - BCBrian, the way we can tell when our politicans are lying is to watch their mouths. If it moves, they're lying!!! Probably the same in your part of the world.

This COULD be a very enlightening election this year. As far as I'm concerned, both parties have a lot of work to do.

There's a problem here with terminology. The republicans have the MAJORITY in all three, but they sure don't CONTROL much, particularly in the senate.

Dick

Majority is only good when they all can agree, thats why they have to stand for reelection, even the entrenched senitors who have out lived the times. Or drank themselves into oblivion.

A great man once said, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. In US politics it is fool as many gullible people as much of the time as you can. Then lie about it.

Justices Kennedy and Souter are ostensibly Republicans, but I don't think it can be credibly stated that they are under the control of the party.

Supreme Court Justices do tend to come up through the ranks of political party clubs and party machines. A good many have been political hacks of the first order.

quote: But we gave 'em their own cable TV news channel and the top three talk radio shows in the country anyway. end quote
i'm thinking that's the result of market forces, NOT one party or another ...

Ah, but they do! They get to pick the committee heads, and that pretty much controls the agenda - if they care to exercise that control. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."

- Will Rogers