The official answer is that each party has a primary or a caucus for each state in which state members of that party are able to pick delegates who are pledged to certain candidates. Those delegates then go to a convention where the candidate is picked.
That's the official story, but it's never actually been that way. Candidates are usually picked by party powerful, the party leaders who actually run the party, determine the platform, etc.
In the old days this was done at the convention. Usually there wasn't one candidate who had a huge majority of votes, so perhaps after the first ballot or two, party power-brokers and 'king makers' would get together in a 'smoke filled room' and make deals, usually in secret. (Now that nobody smokes anymore, I wonder if it's a chewing-gum filled room 8^) ).
These days, it's different. Money has become so important in politics that whoever comes into the primary season with the most money becomes automatically the 'presumptive' candidate. Instead of hammering it out at the convention, party leaders and financiers get together a year in advance and line up their money behind one candidate. Once that candidate announces his candidacy, he is immediately considered the winner because he has the most money, so there's not really a contest. The media treats him like the front-runner and gives all his competitors short-shrift, treats them like they're not really serious candidates. Of course he wins all the primaries, so by convention time there's nothing to do but officially declare him the winner, the nominee. This was the case with Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, and GW Bush. (This year was different, for some reason, for both parties. But as you can see, both parties had their candidate picked well before the convention).
In a way I think this is wrong, that the PEOPLE, the VOTERS, should pick their party's candidate. But then, in some countries to belong to a party you need to attend meetings and pay dues, so most people don't, they just choose from whoever the parties put up. In the US you can 'belong' to a party just by declaring yourself a member, but you aren't really a contributing member, so people who are deeply involved in party politics have a lot more say, and perhaps that's how it should be. Like the captain of a team being picked by its members.
The old method of nomination for office, still used to some extent, was through the caucus or convention. A caucus means a meeting of the members of a party in a certain neighborhood, whether a precinct, a township, a state legislature, or Congress. A convention is made up of people elected by caucuses or by some other means to meet for some definite purpose. Nominations in a convention are made by a vote of the majority, or whatever other percentage of members the party rules require.
National candidates are still chosen in this way. No satisfactory substitute for it has been invented. The direct primary has not worked well for presidential candidates.
Dissatisfaction with this system is because at best, the convention system is made up of only a few people, who may not represent the will of the party, nor may it represent the voting majority . There is plenty of opportunity for political trickery and for the underhand work of party leaders.
People vote in state caucusous or primaries then they all get together and have a convention and a roll call is made and the delegates convey how the votes in their states went and give them to that candidate then the csuper delegates chime in and they total it all up and thats the winner.
Insofar as whom the candidate is the party backroomers get one of the choosen to run or someone who feals entitled can run or someone who is arrogant can run or someone who really thinks they could do the job runs if they got enough money
Polls and computer simulations that estimate based on known conditions the electability of candidates. This is combined against the party's policies and goals, and whomever rises to the top is selected. I know that the GOP uses extensive computer simulations in this process, I think the Dems are lagging on the technology side, but supposedly Obama has built a killer database to use in future assessments.
The person who is most successful in the primaries and caucuses gets nominated. Even if he is someone they don't expect anybody will vote for in the real election.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Take your pick
1. Rock paper scissors
2. Heads or tail. You call
3. Prettiest face
4. most obedient to party leaders
5. The suck up of all suck ups to party leaders
6. spin the bottle
7. least baggage
8. most supporters
9. the polls
10. the fortunetellers prediction - best chances of winning
The official answer is that each party has a primary or a caucus for each state in which state members of that party are able to pick delegates who are pledged to certain candidates. Those delegates then go to a convention where the candidate is picked.
That's the official story, but it's never actually been that way. Candidates are usually picked by party powerful, the party leaders who actually run the party, determine the platform, etc.
In the old days this was done at the convention. Usually there wasn't one candidate who had a huge majority of votes, so perhaps after the first ballot or two, party power-brokers and 'king makers' would get together in a 'smoke filled room' and make deals, usually in secret. (Now that nobody smokes anymore, I wonder if it's a chewing-gum filled room 8^) ).
These days, it's different. Money has become so important in politics that whoever comes into the primary season with the most money becomes automatically the 'presumptive' candidate. Instead of hammering it out at the convention, party leaders and financiers get together a year in advance and line up their money behind one candidate. Once that candidate announces his candidacy, he is immediately considered the winner because he has the most money, so there's not really a contest. The media treats him like the front-runner and gives all his competitors short-shrift, treats them like they're not really serious candidates. Of course he wins all the primaries, so by convention time there's nothing to do but officially declare him the winner, the nominee. This was the case with Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, and GW Bush. (This year was different, for some reason, for both parties. But as you can see, both parties had their candidate picked well before the convention).
In a way I think this is wrong, that the PEOPLE, the VOTERS, should pick their party's candidate. But then, in some countries to belong to a party you need to attend meetings and pay dues, so most people don't, they just choose from whoever the parties put up. In the US you can 'belong' to a party just by declaring yourself a member, but you aren't really a contributing member, so people who are deeply involved in party politics have a lot more say, and perhaps that's how it should be. Like the captain of a team being picked by its members.
The old method of nomination for office, still used to some extent, was through the caucus or convention. A caucus means a meeting of the members of a party in a certain neighborhood, whether a precinct, a township, a state legislature, or Congress. A convention is made up of people elected by caucuses or by some other means to meet for some definite purpose. Nominations in a convention are made by a vote of the majority, or whatever other percentage of members the party rules require.
National candidates are still chosen in this way. No satisfactory substitute for it has been invented. The direct primary has not worked well for presidential candidates.
Dissatisfaction with this system is because at best, the convention system is made up of only a few people, who may not represent the will of the party, nor may it represent the voting majority . There is plenty of opportunity for political trickery and for the underhand work of party leaders.
Did you miss it last night
People vote in state caucusous or primaries then they all get together and have a convention and a roll call is made and the delegates convey how the votes in their states went and give them to that candidate then the csuper delegates chime in and they total it all up and thats the winner.
Insofar as whom the candidate is the party backroomers get one of the choosen to run or someone who feals entitled can run or someone who is arrogant can run or someone who really thinks they could do the job runs if they got enough money
Polls and computer simulations that estimate based on known conditions the electability of candidates. This is combined against the party's policies and goals, and whomever rises to the top is selected. I know that the GOP uses extensive computer simulations in this process, I think the Dems are lagging on the technology side, but supposedly Obama has built a killer database to use in future assessments.
The candidate with the most money wins.
The person who is most successful in the primaries and caucuses gets nominated. Even if he is someone they don't expect anybody will vote for in the real election.
Darts and pictures placed randomly on a dartboard.
I think actually they do a poll to measure popularity of a potential candidate.
Do people like his/her smile? Do they look good on camera?
It is all about the party winning and not about the best person to run the country.
How else would you explain Obama?
Benjamin Franklin ($$$$$) chooses.
in the us, cauacuses and primaries are used to select delegates, who then choose the candidate.