How are candidates selected in your countries?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-05-05 02:27am

Since there is so much discussion about the American presidential primary process, I thought I'd ask members from other (presumably) democratic countries to describe how the parties in their countries pick candidates, and what they think about it.

I know that, for example, Mexico has a set of primary elections, at least in the PAN party.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-05-05 02:29am

I should add, too, whether or not members here have participated in their parties's candidate selection process, whatever it is.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2008-05-05 02:53am

In Australia (and, I think, in other Commonwealth countries), the Party Leader is chosen by party caucus. That is to say, all of the MPs in that party get together and choose a candidate. Then the Party Leader chooses his own cabinet from amongst the influential MPs in the party. The ALP used to choose cabinet members by caucus as well, but Kevin Rudd got to choose his own cabinet after he was elected PM.

The G-G, of course, is chosen by Her Majesty, on the advice of the Prime Minister (read: the PM gets to choose).

I don't mind too much, since the PM wouldn't be able to do much if they didn't have the support of their party, and it provides a mechanism for party leaders to be removed without an election if that is necessary. There does seem to be a disturbing tendency developing for the party leaders to control the party, rather than the other way around, which does disturb me, though. Personally I blame John Howard.

Resinence · Post by **Resinence** » 2008-05-05 02:59am

It should also be noted that it is well and truly possible for independents to win seats in Australia, and they do. Though the party's are still the big dogs so to speak. It's not like the US where you basically pick "democrat or republican".

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2008-05-05 03:27am

Resinence wrote:It should also be noted that it is well and truly possible for independents to win seats in Australia, and they do. Though the party's are still the big dogs so to speak. It's not like the US where you basically pick "democrat or republican".

I put that down to preferential voting. Let's face it, in America voting for a 3rd party is basically like sitting at home and not voting. I could vote for whoever I wanted, and my vote would end up with my less-hated party.

And if you enter the Federal election, you get funding proportional to the amount of votes you received. It means that a reasonably popular candidate could realistically afford to run for office, even if they can't attract significant sponsorship.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-05-05 04:17am

Germany is party-centric, too.
The candidate for the Chancellor is selected at a party congress. Usually, this is the party leader (but not necessarily so). After election of parliament, the Chancellor is then voted in by the winning coalition and then he creates his cabinet.
Our federal President is selected by the parties and elected by the Federal Assembly. Given that it is normally pretty obvious which coalition has the upper hand in the Assembly, there are only one or two "real" candidates, the other ones just being token candidates.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-05-05 04:42am

Candidates come from Parties, Parties select them in primaries or by any other method they find suitable. I know communists use primaries. I don't know if LDPR, or United Russia formally uses them. Probably not. Some marginal right wing parties also have primaries IIRC.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2008-05-05 07:05am

Prime Minister and President.

Prime Ministers are selected from the party which won the most seats in Parliament in a closed party caucus. Which has no point since the power of the Party whip makes it a non elected position.

Technically, the President is now an electable person selected for by the people. However, other than Mr Ong, His Excellency S R Nathan has been essentially selected for by the Party due to "no other viable candiate" in the last election, and prior to that, the fact that the party decided not to hold an election. Which means that so far, we had only 1 elected President.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2008-05-06 11:39am

The party members have a convention and draw names out of a hat, then they hold a series of votes and the winner is the party leader, and if the party gets voted into power then the leader becomes the PM. Or something like that. The cabinet is picked by the PM and the powers that be in the part, usually it's a bunch of senior or high profile party members.

It seems to work fine, except for when we end up with a dipshit like Stephen Harper.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-05-06 11:40am

aerius wrote:The party members have a convention and draw names out of a hat, then they hold a series of votes and the winner is the party leader, and if the party gets voted into power then the leader becomes the PM. Or something like that. The cabinet is picked by the PM and the powers that be in the part, usually it's a bunch of senior or high profile party members.

It seems to work fine, except for when we end up with a dipshit like Stephen Harper.

Harper is actually a big improvement over Preston Manning and Stockwell Day for the Canapublican party. I can't imagine either of those two ass-clowns being in power for the past few years and not being considerably worse.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2008-05-06 11:44am

Darth Wong wrote:Harper is actually a big improvement over Preston Manning and Stockwell Day for the Canapublican party. I can't imagine either of those two ass-clowns being in power for the past few years and not being considerably worse.

Yeah, we got a Bush-Lite instead of Bush-Extra. On the other hand, Manning and Stockwell Day are so far out there that their chances of being elected into power are probably around the same as that of the NDP.