Simple questions on how American politics work?

One votes separately for presidential candidates and congressional representatives. One is free to select a president from one party and a congressman from another.

The members of the House of Representatives (the “lower” house) are elected to shorter terms, which, in theory at least, makes them more accountable to the will of the people (hence the informal title “the People’s House”). In addition, states receive a number of representatives that is proportional to the population of the state, so that there is a closer correspondence in this house between popular voice and legislative voice.

Senators have longer terms, and are presumed to be more immune to the winds of popular opinion. Each state gets two senators regardless of the state’s population, a nod to the equal status of states in the union. The rules of the Senate, as maddening as they can be, are intended (nominally) to promote thorough deliberation and debate. Passing a bill through the Senate thus tends to be a more arduous process.

Either house can initiate legislation. Once it has been approved by the house which initiated it, it will be proposed for consideration by the other house, which may or may not choose to take it up. If a bill passes both houses but with different provisions (the common outcome), then the two houses must work together to draft a compromise version that satisfies both houses. Only then is it sent to the President for his signature or veto.

There are other roles the Senate plays relating to checks on the executive branch, budget decisions, etc. which make the Senate the more powerful of the two houses.

Americans vote for the President/Vice President, who run for election as a pair. On the national level we vote for congressional Representatives, which is based on state district population, and also for Senators, of which each state is represented by the same number—two per state.

^^^ What @thorninmud so eloquently said.

All the answers have been covered…just as a detail, there are some types of legislation that must originate in either the House or the Senate. Revenue legislation for instance must originate in the House, and not the Senate.

The Senate has 100 members, two for every state. They are elected “at large” meaning both Senators are elected in state-wide races – they both represent the whole state.

Senators serve six-year terms and they are staggered, so a state does not have two Senate elections in one year.
———————————————————————————-
The House of Representatives has 435 members. They are apportioned by population of the states, but every state gets at least one House member.

For example, the biggest state, California, has 53 Representatives. Small states like Vermont and Montana have 1 each.

A House member represents a geographic area. In Montana that means the whole state. In states with 2 or more reps, each rep has a district. with roughly 600,000 to 700,000 people.

The districts are adjusted every 10 years using the census. States lose and gain seats as their proportion of the US population changes. A dramatic illustration is that California had 11 of 435 seats 100 years ago. Today California has 53 of 435.

All House seats are up for election every two years. Though every Representative must run every two years, in practice most incumbents get re-elected.
————————————————————————————
An extremely simplified explanation of their roles is a bill must pass the House and the Senate, and then be signed by the President to become a law.

Here’s a classic cartoon lesson about the process – Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law

In addition to the above answers, states are divided into congressional districts. Each district has its own election to elect a Representative for the House. The two Senators are elected in State-wide elections. The president, of course, is elected in a nation-wide election.

Currently, we have an electoral college system in place for the president. Here is how the electoral college works- Each state has its own election for president. The state then casts its votes for the winner of their presidential election. Different states have different numbers of votes. California, with the largest population, has the most votes with over fifty. Washington DC, which isn’t even a state, has hardly any. This system has worked well in the past, but as states become larger, it can become more inaccurate. If a state has a close race, it must still cast ALL of its electoral votes for the winner.

The lower house is the House of Representatives, and the upper house is the Senate. The House is meant to more represent the opinions of smaller groups of people, as the Representatives are elected by local elections. The Senate is meant to represent the general opinion of an entire state. However, no laws can be passed without going through both the House and the Senate.

@jaytkay Schoolhouse Rock – you’re my hero today. @mathsphysicsnormally – pay attention to that little bill closely. Musical and wise…

@iamthemob – Thnx! In retrospect I prolly should have skipped the bloviating and just linked to the video

You get to vote for the president, members of congress from your state and state and local officers. However it is more likely that regardless of your vote, the best funded candidate will win. Haven’t you heard? The supreme court declared that corporations have the same rights as humans, therefore to restrict their access to politicians or restrictions on campaign funding violates the newly humanized corporations.

Unfortunately only congress can impeach a Supreme court justice even if their decision is provable treason. They are all bought and paid for by the same corporations.

@Ron_C It is not that well funded candidates are more likely to win regardless of your vote, it is that well funded candidates are more likely to get your vote, so they are more likely to win.

@PhiNotPi a true optimist. Remember Gore vs. Bush? They were both well funded but Bush owned the Supreme Court and the voting machines. That took money.

I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen but in the U.S. the odds are always with the funded

@Ron_C – Can we please, please…not use Gore v. Bush as representative of anything regarding standard Supreme Court practice? The entire situation was so unique…I feel like it disparages the one branch of the Fed that actually defends minority interest against majority pressures…because…damn…that was an UGLY decision.

@iamthemob How about the “Citizens United ” case that granted human rights to corporations regardless of their country of origin?

@Ron_C – The Citizens United holding was much more limited than people seem to make it out to be I fear we are getting off topic – we are in general. ;-)

@iamthemob the question was about how officials are elected in the U.S. If you think that the case had little to do with the subject, please explain why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kept its donors secret. Could it be that their money was, in part, supplied by foreign countries or corporations? Anyone in the world can buy the outcome of an American election. I don’t even see the point of voter registration anymore since real voters have been co-opted.

I think you’re right…

Alright cool…Citizens United held that 2 U.S.C. § 441(b)‘s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions was invalid and could not be applied to spending such as that in Hillary: The Movie (the campaign “material” in question). Since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs. The ban extended to material that could be hundreds of pages long, but at some point said “So vote for X.”

The holding didn’t eliminate anything regarding individual expenditure limits, and the above limitations were absolute as to the last 60 days before the election. The First Amendment reasoning is that the corporation, in essence, supports a candidate that will further its profit interest. That interest is legally its primary focus because it has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. So the expenditure is made in the interest of those shareholder profits, and the corporation is functionally no different than the shareholders independently pooling funds to pay for an advertisement.

For now, this is slightly different than granting a corporation First Amendment rights. It’s also very particular and very limited. The decision did not overturn the ban on political donations by foreign corporations and the prohibition on any involvement by foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending by U.S. subsidiaries, which are covered by other parts of the law.

In any case, this is probably the least efficient way for a corporation to use it’s financial resources to influence policy. What it does demonstrate is the expansive protections of the First Amendment rather than letting corps. run wild.

There is a primary election, which allows the parties to separate out the candidates. You will vote for the candidate in your party that you want to run for each office. Republicans vote for a Republican from a long list of possible candidates to run for president, vice president, and such, and Democrats for a Democrat.

In the final election, every one votes for either of the two, regardless of party affiliation. In that way, you might say we get to vote for the offices twice, the first time to narrow the list, and the second time to actually choose the winner.