In other presidential systems, do they have "primaries"?

[Jacobtm]

Just wondering, in places like France, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and other countries which have nationally elected Presidents, how are the candidates chosen? Are they chosen by systems at all like primaries or caucuses, or other forms of popular voting, or by the officials of their parties?

[minionofmidas]

Well, typically by party conventions manned entirely be unpledged delegates. Conventions that actually, you know, also discuss and vote on issues and stuff.
However, when there's a real contest at hand, parties have experimented with giving the entire membership (which in the US is *much* smaller than in any other country in the world - then again, nowhere else in the world knows this strange concept of partisan registration as far as I can tell) a say by, typically, postal ballot votes which sometimes have even been called "primaries" in emulation of the American example.

[Jacobtm]

Which countries are these that you're talking about?

[Jens]

I have participated in what you might call a primary, when the members of Danish Socialist People's Party voted for a new chairman 2 years ago. Before that election the chairman was chosen by delegates at the yearly convention but in an effort to include the members an election between 3 candidates was called. Eventually Villy Søvndal won with about 60 % of the votes.
The Social Democrats did the same thing when electing new leader in 2005. This is perhaps more comparable since the leader of SD is the current leader of the opposition and has a decent chance of becoming the next Prime Minister. Helle Thorning-Schmidt won that election with a bit more that 50 % of the votes.. Non of the centre and right parties has used this way of electing party leaders. 

[Hash]

Royal was chosen in a Socialist primary in 2006 in France. Sarkozy was chosen by militants at a convention in 2007.

IIRC Italy has primaries too but not for president OC.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Royal was chosen in a Socialist primary in 2006 in France. Sarkozy was chosen by militants at a convention in 2007.

"Militants" roughly translating as "Activists" IIRC.

[Hash]

Royal was chosen in a Socialist primary in 2006 in France. Sarkozy was chosen by militants at a convention in 2007.

"Militants" roughly translating as "Activists" IIRC.

Yeah, though 'party members' is better.

[Tender Branson]

In Austria, after a candidate from one of the major parties declares his/her intention to run, the party leadership throws its support behind the "compromise" candidate and nominates him via a party convention. Allthough running for President in Austria is technically easy (You have to be at least 35 years old, Austrian citizen, pay 5.000$ and collect 6.000 signatures), smaller parties such as the Greens or FPÖ refuse to back a candidate of their own, because of the $$$ the 2 big parties (SPÖ+ÖVP) will spend. The Social Democrat Heinz Fischer was elected President in 2004 and will most likely run as a multi-partisan candidate in 2010, probably unopposed due to his 80% approval ratings.

[Hatman 🍁]

The Liberals here have something remarkably similar to a primary when they choose delegates to go to their national convention to pick a leader.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

The Liberals here have something remarkably similar to a primary when they choose delegates to go to their national convention to pick a leader.

I feel so envious of other political systems right now, the one's that have primaries or conventions that is . Down here, we have no choice in who becomes are party leader. No choice whatsoever. I hope something like that does happen in the near future though.

[minionofmidas]

The Liberals here have something remarkably similar to a primary when they choose delegates to go to their national convention to pick a leader.

I feel so envious of other political systems right now, the one's that have primaries or conventions that is . Down here, we have no choice in who becomes are party leader. No choice whatsoever. I hope something like that does happen in the near future though.

Who chooses party leaders in Australia? The parliamentary party?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who chooses party leaders in Australia? The parliamentary party?

Yep

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Who chooses party leaders in Australia? The parliamentary party?

Yep

It's a terrible way to do it too. When the Liberals elected Brendan Nelson as Leader late last year, every member of the current caucus, no matter if they lost in the 2007 Election was allowed to vote. And that's one reason why Brendan Nelson became Leader.

[Hatman 🍁]

The Liberals here have something remarkably similar to a primary when they choose delegates to go to their national convention to pick a leader.

I feel so envious of other political systems right now, the one's that have primaries or conventions that is . Down here, we have no choice in who becomes are party leader. No choice whatsoever. I hope something like that does happen in the near future though.

Just about the only bad thing about the Australian electoral system.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Liberals here have something remarkably similar to a primary when they choose delegates to go to their national convention to pick a leader.

I feel so envious of other political systems right now, the one's that have primaries or conventions that is . Down here, we have no choice in who becomes are party leader. No choice whatsoever. I hope something like that does happen in the near future though.

Just about the only bad thing about the Australian electoral system.

And the fact that there are only two major parties, and the fact that there's no Bill of Rights.

[ottermax]

Our primary system is largely due to our two-party system. In most other countries there is at least some third-party power. It is also based off of states' rights I believe and other countries just do not have the same Presidential republic system (such as Canada, Japan, and Britain), or lack very rigid two-party politics.

[Hash]

Our primary system is largely due to our two-party system. In most other countries there is at least some third-party power. It is also based off of states' rights I believe and other countries just do not have the same Presidential republic system (such as Canada, Japan, and Britain), or lack very rigid two-party politics.

France has something more along the lines of two-ideology- left (PS, PCF, PRG, Greens, DVG, MRC etc.) vs. right (UMP, MPF, RPF, former UDF, former DL, DVD etc) with an more or less important far-right (FN, MNR) and so-so important centre (MD).

[Hatman 🍁]

The Liberals here have something remarkably similar to a primary when they choose delegates to go to their national convention to pick a leader.

I feel so envious of other political systems right now, the one's that have primaries or conventions that is . Down here, we have no choice in who becomes are party leader. No choice whatsoever. I hope something like that does happen in the near future though.

Just about the only bad thing about the Australian electoral system.

And the fact that there are only two major parties, and the fact that there's no Bill of Rights.

Well, one of them is a coalition. And, there's more than just the two in the Senate.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Liberals here have something remarkably similar to a primary when they choose delegates to go to their national convention to pick a leader.

I feel so envious of other political systems right now, the one's that have primaries or conventions that is . Down here, we have no choice in who becomes are party leader. No choice whatsoever. I hope something like that does happen in the near future though.

Just about the only bad thing about the Australian electoral system.

And the fact that there are only two major parties, and the fact that there's no Bill of Rights.

Well, one of them is a coalition. And, there's more than just the two in the Senate.

The coalition has been around so long you can't really even call it a coalition. It's more like one party under two names.

[Verily]

The Liberals here have something remarkably similar to a primary when they choose delegates to go to their national convention to pick a leader.

I feel so envious of other political systems right now, the one's that have primaries or conventions that is . Down here, we have no choice in who becomes are party leader. No choice whatsoever. I hope something like that does happen in the near future though.

Just about the only bad thing about the Australian electoral system.

And the fact that there are only two major parties, and the fact that there's no Bill of Rights.

Well, one of them is a coalition. And, there's more than just the two in the Senate.

The coalition has been around so long you can't really even call it a coalition. It's more like one party under two names.

The Nationals are basically the party of safe seats these days. And the Senate doesn't really have all that much power.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Liberals here have something remarkably similar to a primary when they choose delegates to go to their national convention to pick a leader.

I feel so envious of other political systems right now, the one's that have primaries or conventions that is . Down here, we have no choice in who becomes are party leader. No choice whatsoever. I hope something like that does happen in the near future though.

Just about the only bad thing about the Australian electoral system.

And the fact that there are only two major parties, and the fact that there's no Bill of Rights.

Well, one of them is a coalition. And, there's more than just the two in the Senate.

The coalition has been around so long you can't really even call it a coalition. It's more like one party under two names.

The Nationals are basically the party of safe seats these days. And the Senate doesn't really have all that much power.

What he said.

[Smid]

The Senate has the ability to block any legislation except for supply (post-1975).

Some would say that the National Party is the rural wing of the Liberal Party.

Proportional Representation for the Senate (and various state upper houses) has resulted in minor parties being able to hold the balance of power in various upper houses including the Senate. Indeed, the Liberal victory in 2004 was large enough to win a majority in the Senate - for the first time in 25 years.

Single member electorates in the House of Reps means stability of government and that a mandate is given to the party that wins the support of the majority, proportional representation in the Senate means that the views of minority groups are still heard. A fairly good balance in my opinion.

While we don't have in Australia primaries to establish the leader of our parties/parliamentary wing, we do have the ability to choose our candidates for election - although you have to be a member of the party in order to vote at the preselection. At least, that's how it is in the Liberal Party.

[ag]

Primaries have emerged in Mexico, but they are not as developed. At least, before the last election (2006) two of the three major parties had some sort of a primary. Though, in both cases it wasn't quite what it is in the U.S.

1. PRI had a full-blown open nationwide primary (in theory). All Mexican voters were eligible to vote. However, by the primary date the then party leader and future nominee (Madrazo) managed to get rid of all competition (but some obscure foil, uknown to anyone but, possibly, his wife). Interestingly, main competitors of Madrazo (mostly Jackson, Yarrington and Montiel) had had a "pre-primary" to select a joint anti-Madrazo candidate. However, the winner of that pre-primary, Mexico State governor Montiel withdrew from the real primary, having been subject to a flood of leaks about his personal (likely illicit) wealth. Though Madrazo denied it, everybody knew who was the source of the leaks .

2. PAN ran a closed primary. Only card-carrying and due-paying party members could vote. This isn't a large number of people: for instance, in Mexico City, with millions of registered voters, only about 8 or 9 thousand PAN members voted in the party primary. The party was a three-way contest, with then-president Fox believed to support the then outgoing Secretary of State Santiago Creel (currently the PAN leader in the Senate).  However, Creel, somewhat an outsider in the party, lost miserably to the future president Calderon.  The primary was staggered, with states divided into 3 groups, each group of states having the election on a separate date, over a period of about a month. In theory, if nobody got 50% of the total nationwide vote over all three round, there would have been a second round primary among the two front-runners - but Calderon won outright.

3. PRD didn't have a primary, as Lopez Obrador had effectively locked up the support of most party activists before the start of the nomination season.  Consequently,  the nomination was uncontested (I believe, it was formally confirmed in a conference).

4. Of the minor parties, PVEM nominated somebody by a decision of the party leadership (confirmed by a conference?), but then chose to withdraw the candidacy and support Madrazo.  PT and Convergencia endorsed Lopez Obrador without primaries, as part of a coalition bargain with PRD. Panal and Alternativa nominated their candidates without primaries as well.