But why can't they all have the same laws? That is what confuses us Brits!

I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but in Britain we have three sets of laws. English law, Scots law and Northern Irish law.
They're all very similar, but there are important differences, particularly with Scots law. Like the age of majority being 16 not 18, 15 jurors in a trial not 12, and the additional option of a Scots jury to declare a verdict of 'Not proven', on top of the binary guilty/not-guilty of an English court.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

The USA is composed of 51 Republics. Each with its own responsibilities.

At last, OMG I never thought I'd see the day from an American. So why do you call yourselves the UNITED States when you are nothing of the sort. Even your Civil War was one half of you against the other half over black slavery.

We are united under a common Federal Government that has final say in matters over the States. The most in-fighting occurs when the Federal Government creates a new law, which obviously affects all states, then the States who disagree with the new law cry about Federal over-reach.

So we most certainly are united, but like all families we do tend to bicker with our parents a lot.

Very difficult, for any Party, to win three Presidential elections in a row.

Especially when the leading candidate of that party has 4 ongoing Federal investigations into her doings and is rated by the majority of citizens as untrustworthy and a liar. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/08/27/clinton-hits-lows-on-favorability-trustworthiness-in-poll/

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Very difficult, for any Party, to win three Presidential elections in a row.

Especially when the leading candidate of that party has 4 ongoing Federal investigations into her doings and is rated by the majority of citizens as untrustworthy and a liar. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/08/27/clinton-hits-lows-on-favorability-trustworthiness-in-poll/

Here is the rest of the data from that poll:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

"Trump and Clinton have the worst scores among top candidates on honesty:

Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 61 - 34 percent, her lowest score ever;
Trump is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 54 - 38 percent. "
That is quite a range there.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Very difficult, for any Party, to win three Presidential elections in a row.

F.D.R.

---

"Trump and Clinton have the worst scores among top candidates on honesty:

Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 61 - 34 percent, her lowest score ever;
Trump is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 54 - 38 percent. "
That is quite a range there.

The point of the Presidential elections in the US is to choose the BEST possible leader among those available, not the least objectionable. Unfortunately the best has not been nominated by either party for many decades. We(the People) have been forced into a 'which one stinks less' choice and may not be willing to do so again.

Written over 20 years ago by Jackson Browne:

They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us everything from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars

I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Very difficult, for any Party, to win three Presidential elections in a row.

F.D.R.

FDR wasn't 3... it was 4 (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944). (got a constitutional amendment over it to prevent it ever happening again).

And, to be fair...

Reagan, Reagan, Bush the Elder... (1980, 1984, 1988)

The point of the Presidential elections in the US is to choose the BEST possible leader among those available, not the least objectionable. Unfortunately the best has not been nominated by either party for many decades. We(the People) have been forced into a 'which one stinks less' choice and may not be willing to do so again.

Thats on Americans themselves. If only a small percentage ever bothers to show up to most elections (except the presidential election, which happens to be the biggest show but also the least important for most people) then yeah you get bad candidates. I mean, think about it. In the primaries, only the extreme sides of both parties show up to vote, which means that in order to get through the primaries, the candidate has to pander to the extreme right or extreme left. Then when the actual elections happen, those candidates need to become more moderate in order to appeal to everyone else. What happens? Candidates start to change their stances on a number of issues, which gets picked up on by the media, resulting in candidates being rated as dishonest and weak. If everyone participated during the primary elections, politicians could appeal directly to the more moderate voters and ignore the fringes of their party and they wouldn't have to change their positions so much afterwards.

But at least you get relatively moderate politicians during the presidential race. In all those other elections, there are no primaries and it only comes down to the voting where only extremists bother to show up. As a result you might get a moderate president but a bunch of lunatics in congress and in local positions. Of course that clashes a lot resulting in a further erosion of trust in the government, politicians and the system in general.

Thats on Americans themselves. If only a small percentage ever bothers to show up to most elections (except the presidential election, which happens to be the biggest show but also the least important for most people) then yeah you get bad candidates. I mean, think about it. In the primaries, only the extreme sides of both parties show up to vote, which means that in order to get through the primaries, the candidate has to pander to the extreme right or extreme left. Then when the actual elections happen, those candidates need to become more moderate in order to appeal to everyone else. What happens? Candidates start to change their stances on a number of issues, which gets picked up on by the media, resulting in candidates being rated as dishonest and weak. If everyone participated during the primary elections, politicians could appeal directly to the more moderate voters and ignore the fringes of their party and they wouldn't have to change their positions so much afterwards.

But at least you get relatively moderate politicians during the presidential race. In all those other elections, there are no primaries and it only comes down to the voting where only extremists bother to show up. As a result you might get a moderate president but a bunch of lunatics in congress and in local positions. Of course that clashes a lot resulting in a further erosion of trust in the government, politicians and the system in general.

Uhh... no.

Primary elections are NOT just 'for president'.

Evidence:
The Republican party primary sample ballot for Travis County, Texas for 2014.

http://www.traviscountyclerk.org/eclerk/content/images/sample_ballots/2014.03.04_REP_Primary_Bedsheet_p14.pdf

Dude, that was for 2014 (a 'mid-term' election). There are Federal, State, and County positions on the ballot, as well as Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch offices being voted on. Also included are both 'opinion polls' on various questions of importance to the Republican party, and various party leadership positions.

Various City level positions (Mayor, City Council, etc.) also have primaries, but they (as well as the General Elections) are frequently in Odd numbered years... 2013, 2015, etc.

Your assertion that the Primary elections are usually more 'extremeist' than the General election might have some level of validity on the Federal level (President, Congress), the State and Local races... not so much.

Texas has been, since the Reconstruction after the Civil War, traditionally conservative, 1-party state. Prior to the Reagan Revolution, Texas was solidly Democrat. Reagan caused the Conservatives to abandon the increasingly liberal Democrat party and flock to the Republican party. Now, Texas is rather solidly Republican. It is a matter of some debate whether or not this is a good or a bad thing, but it is what it is. The 'Primary' tends to BE the Election in Texas. But, this is changing here in Texas as our economic strength is attracting all sorts of people from the 'failed' States in much of the rest of the USA. We have a LOT more damnyankeecarpetbaggers down here now than we had even during Reconstruction. Yankee, Go Home!

It may interest some to know that Texas was set up during WWII to become independent of the rest of the US for security reasons. Even the electric grid does not include Texas, it is on a separate grid. This was done primarily to protect the production of oil and defense manufacturing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/08/why_texas_has_its_own_power_grid.html

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

But, this is changing here in Texas as our economic strength is attracting all sorts of people from the 'failed' States in much of the rest of the USA. We have a LOT more damnyankeecarpetbaggers down here now than we had even during Reconstruction. Yankee, Go Home!

Texas always did think it WAS the USA, and SPOKE for the USA, and was in fact THE USA.

So no change there then.

So how long will it be before Texas sets itself up as in independent country in it's own right? I can see it happening.

I can see it happening right now. Sort of:)
http://kxan.com/2015/07/16/texas-independence-movement-comes-to-austin/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Texas_Nationalist_Movement


The separatists movements are quite popular these days.
Scotland, Pays Basque and others in Europe.

I've never understood why the primaries don't allow registered Independents to vote.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

I've never understood why the primaries don't allow registered Independents to vote.

Depends what (independent and sovereign) state you live in.

http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/presidential-elections/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two/

That is very interesting. I did not know that!

I'm Kentucky, and closed primaries are held in the Spring here for everything, including even city council members.

I just still don't understand the reasoning behind requiring someone to register a party affiliation to vote in a primary.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

The point of the Presidential elections in the US is to choose the BEST possible leader among those available, not the least objectionable. Unfortunately the best has not been nominated by either party for many decades. We(the People) have been forced into a 'which one stinks less' choice and may not be willing to do so again.

Thats on Americans themselves. If only a small percentage ever bothers to show up to most elections (except the presidential election, which happens to be the biggest show but also the least important for most people) then yeah you get bad candidates. I mean, think about it. In the primaries, only the extreme sides of both parties show up to vote, which means that in order to get through the primaries, the candidate has to pander to the extreme right or extreme left. Then when the actual elections happen, those candidates need to become more moderate in order to appeal to everyone else. What happens? Candidates start to change their stances on a number of issues, which gets picked up on by the media, resulting in candidates being rated as dishonest and weak. If everyone participated during the primary elections, politicians could appeal directly to the more moderate voters and ignore the fringes of their party and they wouldn't have to change their positions so much afterwards.

But at least you get relatively moderate politicians during the presidential race. In all those other elections, there are no primaries and it only comes down to the voting where only extremists bother to show up. As a result you might get a moderate president but a bunch of lunatics in congress and in local positions. Of course that clashes a lot resulting in a further erosion of trust in the government, politicians and the system in general.

Or adopt a system as progressive California has done and have an open primary where anyone can vote for any party's candidate. Forces the extremists to last place.

---

I thought the EU political procedures was complicated.
Well. The US seems to even have more problem with political procedures...

I thought the EU political procedures was complicated.
Well. The US seems to even have more problem with political procedures...

Gee think of that, no tree stumps in Sweden.

---

Or adopt a system as progressive California has done and have an open primary where anyone can vote for any party's candidate. Forces the extremists to last place.

The republican primary is closed in California.
The democratic primary is open in California.

Meaning the democrats can mess with the republican primary, but the republicans can't mess with the democratic primary.

Don't ask me why the republicans are giving the democrats an advantage... I can only guess bad things about the republicans out there.

Yes/NO. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-california/

The republican primary is only closed for the office of President and County Central Committee. Open for all other offices.

As to why, I suspect that the cooler heads in the party are worried that the vast majority of Democrats might intentionally vote for the least electable candidate and thereby seriously damage the party. Or they are worried they would vote for the most progressive and actually force a contest rather than nominate another Bob "B1" Dornan type so loved in Orange County.

---

Donald Trump's Phone Call with Hillary Clinton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONRQZshyrPI