Hey guys, I have a few questions regarding your system of things...

whats the point in having only 2 parties (unless there are more that dont get media coverage) with who knows how many candidates reperesenting each party? Why have more then one candidate for each party when they tend to represent different ideals? if not then why only 2 parties?

In canada we have several parties with only one leader each. You vote for seats of representation in the house of commons by rural discrect of whatever party you think will do the best for the country.

Why do you even have a presedent? doesent anything he / she if and when it happens have to have it approved by the senate first? why not skip the middle man and have so many voted seats represent each state forming the senate and then have them vote on everything based on what the general population wants? Everything form the people for the people. Think "Gladiator" where Rome was to be returned to the people via senate and disposition of the emperor.

In canada each political rideing/ jourisdiction of canada is represented in the house of commons based on voted for the area. They are intern part of one of the parties of out government where only the voted leader of the party by the party is leader of that party in power and if in power priminister. The priminister has near complete power except for a minority government where passing bills that regard finance, military action and a few others that require a "vote of confidance" (only if there are less then 50% total seats of the party in power in parliment compared the remainder of seats) where the collective parties of canada can force a new general election. other wise the party with more then 50% seats can do whatever they want because the have more of the seats to vote for them.

And how does your vice presedential system work? and why a vice presedent? based on the next most votes or is it another election/ vote completley different? I can understand "someone" has to be incharge if say the presedent was away or out of the picture for who knoes what reason, but why not have another represenetive of the party keep the ball rolling why not the spouce of the presedent shouldent be any conflict of interst? It doesent make sence because you guys seem to vote for the person, not the party. the person just generaly shares some of the same ideals as another party.

And hows someone get to be presedent, it seems to me anyone and only those with stupid ampounts of money can do it. Here if you want to be priminister you need to forst start small and work your way up the political chain. Mayor of district/ town/ city, premier of a province prehaps and from there in the party you run for party leader and if in power or elected to power by the people you are priminister.

Sorry, but your system just seemes to screwed to me, can you help me out?

Oh yea, why a donkey and elephant? seriousley.... Oh, and the eagle...? because it looks good?

Theres more, it just takes time to be able to form them in to understandable sentences. prticulatley your bill of rights compared to the charter of rights and freedomes.

This should be a fun one - you're right though, the American experiment of checks and balances probably won't ever get off the ground and we'll never amount to much on the world stage

Actually, since I'm stuck in a hotel room on a Friday night, and still feeling a little bad for going off the deep end on Cory, I'll try to answer as many of your questions as I can as honestly as I can.

"whats the point in having only 2 parties (unless there are more that dont get media coverage) with who knows how many candidates reperesenting each party? Why have more then one candidate for each party when they tend to represent different ideals? if not then why only 2 parties?"

That's actually a fair question.  There is nothing that says there are only two parties, and, in fact, there are many more, but those two have emerged as the main contenders years after year (and, really, throughout history, think Tories and Wigs, French revolution, and on and on.  Basically, I think, you tend to wind up with two parties because there are, basically, two kinds of people.  Those who are happy with the way things are and want to protect, or conserve it, and those who aren't and want to change things, usually by getting the government more involved in liberally distributing wealth.  So, today, the two main parties are the Republicans and Democrats, or Conservatives and Liberals.

"Why do you even have a presedent? doesent anything he / she if and when it happens have to have it approved by the senate first? why not skip the middle man and have so many voted seats represent each state forming the senate and then have them vote on everything based on what the general population wants?"

The basic concept of our government is a system of "checks and balances."  There are three bodies or branches of US Federal (National) Government - the Executive, which includes the President and his Cabinet (all those Secretaries of this and that, The Legislative, which includes the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Judicial, which is the US Supreme Court.  Each has, conceptually, equal influences through checks and balances on each other.  Ultimately, the legislative branch, elected at the State level and representing each State, passes laws, but the President has final signing power to approve or deny (veto) the laws thaey pass.  The judicial branch can then rule on the Constitutionality of those laws and overrule all of it if someone takes exception to a law and they choose to hear the case.  The members of the Supreme are actually nominated by the President, and approved by the Senate.  So, conceptually, they all keep each other in check.  Elections for the President, Senate, and House of Representatives are all staggered so that the people can vote for a change in influence.  The election process for the President is actually very interesting and contentious, as well - do a google on "electoral college" if you want to learn more about that.  Be prepared to read it several times

Should also point out the the founding fathers really felt that States should have a high degree of control over their own affairs, so their structures echo that of the Federal Government. 

And how does your vice presedential system work? and why a vice presedent? based on the next most votes or is it another election/ vote completley different? I

The President selects the VP.  Historically, the VP role was typically given to the person who came in second, but in modern times the candidates from each party select their running mate well in advance of the national election and they run as a combined ticket.

What you're hearing about now, though, is the party nomination process.  That process is not dictated by the constitution, and is determined by each party based on how they choose to do things.

And hows someone get to be presedent, it seems to me anyone and only those with stupid ampounts of money can do it.

Yup.  That's why you hear so much about campaign finance reform, special interest groups, etc.

Oh yea, why a donkey and elephant? seriousley.... Oh, and the eagle...? because it looks good?

In both cases they came from political cartoons years ago and kind of stuck.  I think the elephant came stuck because it suggests permanance, stability, and caution, and the donkey came after someone called Andrew Jackson a jackass, but probably stuck because donkeys are defiant.  The eagle is our national bird, (a whole other interesting discussion on how it was chosen), and is the centerpiece of the Great Seal of the United States (another interesting discussion).

That's about what I can contribute - I may be off on a few points and simplified things a bit, but that's the gist of it.

So then what goes on/ what happend when for example Bushes first reich. How was he elected presedent when the other guy... Mccain? had more votes... It seems that they the people representing more of the counry in the favor of that candidate would get elected. And what was the deal with florida?

Unfortunetley in Canada we have what is called western alienation. Where most of the counties population is in Ontario and Quebec, most of the votes from that small section have more influince on everewhere west of Ontario. Is it right that the votes for seats in the house of commons represents the governments? Yes. Is it right that such a small area of canada is representing the wants and needs of alot of left over country? Yes and no, it is based on the population however there are more important aspects to and issues to deal with in Canada then the 10 or so cities bordering the states and great lakes...

Have you guys some how found a way around that or was that just another botched election?

That's why the Electoral College works the way it does, so that dense population centers don't wind up overly skewing the vote, or, more to the point, to make sure smaller states have some say in national matters.  Each State has two Senators, but the number of Representatives they have (the other half or "chamber" of Congress, which is the legislative branch) varies by State based on population, and are elected on the State level in districts.  So, there are 100 Senators, two for each State, and currently 435 Representatives.  Any law has to pass both the House (of Representatives) and the Senate before moving on to the President to sign or veto.  The idea is that larger population centers do get a proportionally larger vote in the House, but he Senate is more balanced to make sure, for example, that a very large State like California doesn't wind up making all the laws for the country.  If they have special concerns and needs that apply to them but really have no bearing on someone like Idaho, for example, they should handle that through their own State government.

To elect the president, you vote for the candidate of your choice, but you're actually casting a vote for your state's "electors," which are equal in number to the number of Senators and Representatives in your state, who in turn cast those votes in what is called the electoral college.  People in DC also get 5 electors, so there's a total of 540 electors.  The idea is that the President isn't elected by popular national vote, but by the States - in the simplest term, when you vote you're not actually putting your vote into a national pool to see who got the most votes, but into a State pool to determine how your State, which is proportionally represented in the electoral college, will vote.  In all but two states, the candidate who receives the most votes gets all of that State's electoral votes, in what's called a "winner takes all" system.  So, it's possible for a Presidential candidate to receive the most votes in absolute terms nationally but not win the majority of State electors, since that's not how the system is meant to work. 

This is what happened between Bush and Gore in the last election.  Florida was particularly contentious because the vote was so close in that state (after a mandatory recount, fewer than 500 votes or something separated the two in that state, which was less than 1/2 of a percent of that state's total votes) and Florida's electors ultimately made the difference in the outcome.  So, there was a lot discussion and debate over whether there should be second recount (as I recall one was starrted and then stopped), and whether all the ballots had been read properly, etc. 

Ed, I googled this kind of a classic text-book diagram of how the US government is structured for "checks and balances, if you're interested: