>>>I'm trying to understand how the political system of the US work and I need your help to clear the things up.
>>>
>>>For comparison, here in Canada, the political leader of a party is choosen by the (paying) members of the party. We don't vote for a delegate, we vote directly for the leader of our choice. As I understood it, in the US you vote for a delegate that will vote for you. Why is this? Why can't you vote directly for Clinton, Obama or McCain for exemple?
>>>
>>
>>Primary voters do not have to be paying members of a party, only to declare what party's primary they want to vote in. this does not obligate them to vote that way in the general election.
>>
>>Party's select their candidate at the convention, and that is where the delegates who represent the primary results will vote. there is still room for negotiation etc. then. Many candidates may have some delegates pledged to them going into the convention and they can thereby exert some influence on the final choice. These are customs that have evolved over 200 years and are not codified in law. Each party does things slightly differently.
>>
>>
>>>In the US, the vote for the presidency is spread accross many weeks. It seem to me anti-democratic because the last states to vote know the previous results and it will affect how they vote. When there's a vote here in Canada, either for an election or for the leader of the party, the vote is done in one day. More than that, it take into account the different time zones and try to hide the results of the eastern provinces to the western provinces until the western provinces poll boots closes. Why not do the same thing in the US? Is it the same thing for the general election?
>>
>>Many have suggested it here. Again, a matter of custom. But the disadvantages you mention are real. There are also some advantages from the point of view of candidates building support over time and getting more exposure.
>>
>>>
>>>Here we have 4 parties who share the power in the parliament. The US seem to have only 2 parties (Democrats and Republicans). Why only 2? Is it in the Constitution?
>>
>>No. There have been third parties and there have been major parties that have died and been replaced. There is nothing in the constitution that mentions political parties at all.
>>
>>>
>>>In the US, it seem that you vote once for the president and once for the parties. That's a good thing IMHO. Here we can only vote for a party in a general election. The leader of that party is automatically named the Prime Minister. I also like very much the law that limit the number of mandates to 2. I whish that this law could be adopted here in Canada.
>>
>>I don't know what you mean about limiting the number mandates to 2. There is no limit on the number of candidates and there are always many on the ballot beside the Dem and GOP but due to the size of the country, the cost of campaigning in a media intensive election etc a third party candidate does not realistically have a chance of winning ( though he can split the vote in a way that might be to the advantage of one of the major parties. Many people feel Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election. )
>
>(boldfacing added by me)
>
>Bush had two mandates, or at least he thinks he did ;-)

Naah, I think the landslide of 2000 just kind of carried him.

Besides, he doesn't believe in man-dates - can lead to gay marriage. ( and as the Baptists will tell you - that can lead to *dancing* )