Balloting techniques
Has Barack Obama already lost? I ask this after receiving the following from a well-informed person with connections in New England and New York State on the technique of absentee ballot organisation:
"You go to a primary state when no-one else is working it hard. You work it hard. You tell them you will be back. As soon as your visit is over, you remind the people (New Hampshire) that the weather at primary time can be really bad... and there may not be any car pool since every one is so strapped for cash, your local organizer is susceptible to flu, etc. etc. You convince them to file an absentee ballot, just in case, so their vote counts.
"Now, get this, you're Hillary's tout so guess who you are pushing for that ballot paper - that you just happen to have with you. Here are the words the woman I talked to let slip she said to an absentee voter: 'Hillary really appreciates your support,' as you stand over them filling out their ballot. It's a woman thing, especially older women.
"There was another line that I think is particularly onerous with old-age pensioners - this may be their last chance to vote for a woman president - to make their vote count."
Now my contact - who is not a conspiracy theorist or fantasist - believes this (perfectly legal) pressure was used by Hillary in New Hampshire and might have made the difference on the day (or before it) and, more important, is being used in many other states as well. And it could make the difference between winning and losing on Super Tuesday.
Has the Obama campaign - fuelled by dreams and guided by 26-year-old speechwriters with golden pens, and the audacity of hope etc etc - actually messed up big time when it comes to the nitty gritty business of getting people to vote, not just on the day (which is what the media has focused on) but BEFORE the day as well...
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
What an intriguing voting method. And supposedly the United States it the most democratic in the world?
Whatever way you look at it, this election will be historic. There will be a female or black candidate and likely President after 2 poor Republican terms. Obama seems the more passionate and moderate of the two and the world, not only the US needs a leader like that to diffuse tension in the Middle East and Russia.
By way some coverage of Ron Paul would be good. That guy has some very sensible ideas and he genuinely seems like a nice guy, unlike most of the candidates.
Thanks.
I do feel Obama needs to reshuffle his campaign team. If what Justin's contact says is true and 'legal' coercion of voters is a Clinton camp ploy then he has to address it, blow for blow. The team have been a little shoddy on other issues too and a little 'house-cleaning' wouldn't hurt. More importantly, if the candidates continue to spat in the Debates, the Republicans will take the bigger pie - that's for sure.
The democratic nominations is taking a very unprecedented turn, that is focus on racism.I belive Clinton is fanning it inorder to force Obama into a corner.Obama has so far shied away from race issue but clinton is making a meal out of it to anger Barack into saying "yes im seeking black votes, so what" then she goes on to campaign using these stick which would be dangled to every white.In any case who is the majority?yes you guessed it..........she will win the nomination and would be floored by McCain who will campaign using the the gender issue.
These is the simple of American democracy,forget about economy,foreign policy blah,blah being peddled by some unwitty republicans and media houses.
God forbid we are back to where we began 200years ago.
Hmm...Interesting..
Well worth re-reading the book, The Best Democracy Money can buy by Greg Palast to see some other moves from the US election playbook..
Remember folks, vote early - vote often..
This is exactly the same method Rudy Giuliani is using to win Florida.
a practice that is not unheard of in the UK either. Has Obama lost quite possibly, his attack on Bill Clinton smacks of desperation, hos voting record does not stand up to scutiny. He has not an unblemished record of opposition to war in Iraq.
The problem with South Carolina is the race card he has quite rightly avoided it but now he comes to South Carolina and can't miss it. If he wins its the black vote that will have swung it.
Interestlingly in Nevada it seems Hillary Clinton got everybody exxcept blacks and young voters, crucially she got the Hispanic vote. Assuming that there any Democratic Hispanic voters in Florida they will be crucial and of course in California, Texas, New York etc.
Well, as my teacher said "cite your sources." If that is the latest spin and you choose to believe it that is your choice. I heard a woman from Iowa on a Chicago radio station state she decided to give up on voting for Obama because his "get out the vote team" not only called her day and night but came to her door on New Years Day, and she felt it was over the top. I would not give up on Obama's team or Clinton's. Just sit back and enjoy the ride...where's the popcorn.
Only foreigners who have never seen one up close for themselvese could imagine that an American Presidential election and most other elections in the US for that matter are fought by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. People who back these candidates with big money gotten to them one way or another have an investment and expect returns when their candidates are in power and so the stakes all around are high. That's why many organizations will back both sides feeling they are owed a debt such as favorable legislation for them no matter who wins. "We get the best government money can buy." The incidents you cite are so insignificant as to be laughable. Wait until the real dirt starts flying. They will dig out every last thing their opponents ever said or did and magnify them, spin them, make them look as dark as midnight and the experts are really good at it. Among my favorites were the Willy Horton ad Bush used to defeat Dukakas in 1988 where the convicted murderer the Governor released was in a revolving door and of course that masterpiece of Johnson's campaign against Goldwater in 1964 where the little girl is picking daisys in a field to the sound of a countdown and then a nuclear explosion. I'm sure you can find them on the web to enjoy along with a lot more. The fast boat thing used against Kerry and the fake letter about Bush which destroyed Dan Rather and CBS News in the last election were small potatoes. Watergate was tops. What's campaigning like in England, they go knocking door to door with handbills and a polite "vote for my candidate becuase he's the best choice?" Snoozer.
I think you can get too over-excited by this. Absentee ballots (postal voting in the UK) are not illegal, unethical or immoral. But yes, Clinton's GOTV effort was clearly far better organised than Obama all round.
To Bedd Gelert:
Just run Series 6 & 7 of the West Wing TV saga and follow the Matt Santos trail - it's almost as if the author had a vision of the the race we are seeing now and the one to come.
Your blogs are disgusting. What do you like so much about Hillary Clinton. Be objective for once. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is the epidemy of bad jounalism. Stop the bias. What a shame.
I never thought about how the absentee ballot thing would effect him until now.
It is particularly important in his case because a lot of his support comes from college age kids who won't be able to get home to vote.
If he doesn't change this particular aspect of his campaign is done.
It happens in this country too - the electorate can vote by proxy if they complete the appropriate paperwork.
Justin
You could just have easily have used a number of different names (and party for that matter) in your article ... Obama ... Edwards ... Richards ... Romney ... Huckabee ... Paul ...Giuiliani ... McCain ...
They willl all be using similar tactics - Obama's might be 'your last chance to vote for a black man'. So a slight 'shame on you' for making it appear the Clinton camp are up to no good ! She might just be better at it that the rest of them !
This difference in organisational capacity was surely apparent in the New Hampshire result.
It seems that the Clinton machine is better run than that of Obama, with more experienced activists and resources on the ground. Simple measures like ensuring postal/absent ballots are sewn up can make all the diference - especially on frozen or wet polling days, when even relentless urging over the phone will still not get voters out. In UK contests on a low turnout, the postal votes can decide the result, and polling day organisation on the ground is crucial. No great difference between us there.
The truth is, and every indicator supports this at this time, that there is no candidate among anyone running in either party, that is strong enough to garner the support of the public at large.
The voters are very split between candidates, for a number of reasons, which simply means that the electorate has become as split, as I can remember in years.
The only time in recent history, that the voters have found the main 2 parties as lacking, in candidates, was when Ross Perot would likely have won election, as the first time a third party candidate might have won, had he remained in the race.
It is my observation, that anyone who would actually be good at the job, would not want it!
i think you, justin w., has displayed a significant bias against obama throughout your entire blog. you have insinuated time and again that you are unimpressed by obama fever ... you aren't crazy about the clintons but it is clear you dislike barack. i can tell you back the republicans. should your lack of objectivity be so transparent?
Turning out friendly voters, including turning out as many absentee ballots as possible, is a time-honored campaign tactic in the US. This shows the sophistication of Hillary's campaign and the corresponding lack of it by Obama's.
"Now my contact - who is not a conspiracy theorist or fantasist" -
Wrong, she is the definition of these things:
Conspiracy theory
n.
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
Fantasist
n.
One that creates a fantasy.
Rumors and hearsay reported by "intelligent and reasonable" people are the foundation of any good conspiracy theory, including this one.
Erm...the only paper those people could have would be an *application* for an absentee ballot. The actual ballot comes in the mail, precisely to prevent the kind of thing you mention in your post. I realize that the American election process is confusing, but let's not add misinformation to the mix.
Hmm...depending on the state, that could nullify the ballots if there was campaigning in the room where the actual ballot took place.
Just remember though, voting by mail tends to be a two step process. You first apply for your ballot and then need to submit the ballot. The best organizations monitor the ballot mailings (information that is public) and follow up with assistance to the voters on the day the think the ballot will arrive. That way, you can pitch to the voter at the same time you guarantee that the ballot is submitted properly. Often, people forget to return absentee ballots so the follow up is key.
Granted, in my life I have only voted in 2 states, but I have never been in a scenario where someone from a campaign had the actual ballot for me to fill in.
This kind of arm-twisting and pressurizing is standard fare in American elections and the Clinton's (make no mistake about it, this is Bill's third term) are very experienced at it. Why do you think Terry McCauliffe is her campaign manager? This is business as usual, the same old faces, the same machine politics that convinces so many Americans not to bother to vote. It's not the pomp and circumstane when the lights are up, it's the deal-brokering going on behind the scenes. Now you're getting closer to 'covering' a manipulated American election. All the same, it is a little crass to be saying to retirees that "this might be your last chance", so much for feminine sensitivity! But then again there's never been anything very tender or caring about the coldly calculating, opportunistic Rodham/Clintons.
To Bedd Gelert: While I agree that our system has many flaws indeed which most cirtainly need to be corrected; the unlimited raising of funds for campaigns being permitted, the, in my opinion, far too long campaign season of two years, and yes, I agree with you, the coersion and pressure used by campaigns to misuse the absentey balad for a selfish, self-serving purpose which is not what it was intended for most of all!! However I feel your narrow minded, and somewhat disrespectful comments on our system aren't helpful either! It should be noted that wile the dirty ploys are used,-the absentey balad one of which i m making a particular refference to-not all people are susseptable, and allow themselves to be manipulated by such pressure/coersion, and furthermore, absentey balads only make up a very small portion of the electorate! Also, you are fulling yourself if you think, as your post suggests, that all other democracies dont use dirty campaign tricks; that is the point of one to a digree-to challenge, trip up, and engage he oponent, and subsiquently their supporters, into a harsh debate-to give all a full view of what they should consider when voting. The coersion, atacks, and sometimes down right rudeness, are-and I think you will admit this,-used in all countries unfortionitly. It is part of being human and selfish. If we all lived in Utopia, those things would never occur.
To ZK: Who said that we are the "most democratic country in the world?" I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious. I've never even heard of an American-either leader or citizen-say such a thing. I don't know who is, nor think there is a deffinat way in finding out for sure. All countries have flaws they are continuously working on (hopefully), and therefore no one ever really gets there. That being said, what suggestions (since you never expressed any in your piece) do you have on how to make our system work more effectively?
I think it is rude and impolite to be a foreigner (Americans included!!!) and atack other nation's people/systems and ways of handeling and grappleing with their problems. I read a lot of comments from foreigners (British in particular), who say things to the affect of, "You Americans all just dismiss ay foreign criticism wholesale as atacks and anti-Americanism, and you need to realise that you have problems. No doubt I am going to be accuse of anti-American sentament on here." Well I am riting you all to re-assure you of two things. First, that it is not constructive criticism that (I think) most Americans have a problem with; rather it is the vitriolic atacks on our country/its people tend to recieve on these forems. personally, I am no stranger to criticising my country! Ask any one who knows me-and they'll tell you-that I am the first to give it out!! However I never, and this is what I think a lot of foreigners misconstrue, atack the country! When I express dissapointment in it, my goal is to deliver kind constructive criticism, which should, if heeded, make the country a better place than it was before. I think some people-when they atack us rudely with no suggestions on how to improve-goals are just simply, for whatever reason, to be mean. The second-and I feel all foreigners should know this very strongly-is that not all Americans are as hyper and sensitive to criticism as some on these forems, as I'm sure is the case for British, French, and just about any other nationality. Plenty of Americans are constantly striving for perfection as well and criticise our nation just as harshly as you. Please don't think that we're all sheep. I think I speak for all Americans when I say we welcome constructive criticism from all around the world-but, and this is just my own personal opinion-you are much more likely to get that you want; our nation to be in bettter shape than it was before when you criticise kindly rather than atack. And we in return are also more likely to want to improve when such tactics are employed-as I'm sure you would deel the same way if an American were criticising your country. I believe, that if the world uses these tactics when dealing with other countries, it will be a much better place-and in the end, isn't that all we can really hope and strive for?
Im am not "a conspiracy theorist or fantasist", but I have never heard an American use the word "pensioner", as your source supposedly did.
I don't think this could amount to the difference between HC's vote in the NH primary and what the polls predicted. I also go with what Karen says, but saying that if its a Clinton canvasser that arranges the absentee ballot for the voter then that gives HC a clear advantage.
Hey Mr. Webb,
I feel a disproportionate amount of the comments you receive are critical of you, in some way. I just wanted to say, I think you're doing a great job and this blog is a really valuable resource.
Don't feed the Paulistas, they bite.
It would be helpful if we could have some clarification over whether the information is wrong - as Karen alledges. Otherwise, this makes postal voting look good.
Obama has to overcome the party machinery as well as his opponent in order to pull off a win. It would be too easy for him otherwise.
Good point - you win elections by doing the logistical footwork. None of this is rocket science - nor is it beyond the skills/money/volunteers of all the candidates. So if Clinton is the only one doing this, it certainly explains the wins, and the polls.
Why can't Obama? Or Edwards? Are they serious, or is this some kind of "don't need to work by the rules for me", "lighter than air" game? Are we looking at campaigns, or just personality cults?
When does identity politics become that?
The big elephant in the room in Western politics, and namely voting in America, is the issue of the voting machines. There is a need for systematizing the voting machines on a national level, and then updating and maintaining them with vigilance against any potential compromise by outside manipulation or hackers. Even with a paper trail, machines must be protected by updates against the advance of outside manipulators and potential hackers. This is the big elephant in the room in the U.S. and possibly the West. Without the necessary technological checks and balances, the public can only exercise faith. (e.g. the recent voting in New Hampshire resulted in the overwhelming amount of hand-counted votes going to O'Bama, while the machine votes overwhelmingly went to Hilary Clinton--an odd discrepancy.)
I am very skeptical that Obama can win a general election against any of the top 3 Republicans.
Could Obama be a serious presidential contender in the Republican Party? If the possiblility only exist within a section of the Democratic Party, how does he win?
It would be very nice if America has turned the race corner, but I live here and do not see it.
Rick Mc Daniel (17):
As you say, maybe no candidate is strong enough to win the vote of the public at large. However, this may not be because the parties are found to be lacking in candidates, but rather because there are more 'good' choices.
A Gallup poll published 22nd Jan suggests that voters are unusually happy with this year's crop of presidential candidates. According to the poll, 84% of voters think that at least one candidate running this year would make a good president.
Mary #24
You are overly sensitive to the point of being rediculous. Why do you care what foreigners say about America? Why does it matter to you or any other American? Anti-Americanism especially in Europe goes back to just after the American Revolution. Some of it is lack of any but the most superficial knowledge about America (few outsiders including most so called experts fail to ever really understand the essence of what America is actually about) and some of it is pure jealousy at the success American society has had. They will look for every possible flaw and weakness to refute what they know in their hearts is true, that in a mere 11 generations since its founding the USA has risen from a remote obscure entity to eclipse in every meaningful way every other civilization that has ever existed. This was the result of the fruit of the greatest minds who ever struggled with the problem of how people can live together without killing each other. It is not unfair to say that the United States of America is by far the greatest invention in human history. So why fret over what "they" say about us. Only we are qualified to objectively criticize ourselves and only we are qualified to decide how to correct whatever mistakes we deem need correcting. Can you imagine any American politician citing a foreign criticizm or recommendation as valid? It would be instant political suicide. The real sentiments of the world are demonstrated every day by the endless flood of people who want to come here to live their lives and it hasn't ebbed for 400 years.
That outsiders criticize America openly gives us liberty to equally criticize them. All you have to do is know the facts. For instance, the anti-democratic nation of Britain is in the throes of ceding its sovereignty to an extra-national superstate without even so much as a public debate. The prospect of a referendum in which the people actually had a chance to make their voice heard on the matter is the British government's worst nightmare but even their supposed "parties opposite" don't protest, not even meekly. Instead, they are headed down that road willingly like sheep to the slaughter. And look at the convoluted parody of a Constitution they proposed and now secretly guard disguised as a treaty not to be disclosed until it is rubber stamp ratified by all of those non democratic European nations. Nor will their absurd red lines save them. Once you get past its arcane legalese language, all it does is to give Britain a five year reprieve from complying entirely after which it offers limitless punishment in which it will have no say if it fails to yield to Brussels then. By comparison, whatever anti-democratic criticism you can find in persuading people to use absentee ballots to vote for a particular candidate in the US is laughably unimportant.
The Clintons are hardened politicians. They play dirty and will do just about anything to win.
They are well known to Americans for this behavior. We've seen it before, remember?
Obama may be out of his league with these two. He looks like a church choirboy compared to them.
The democratic voters will have to decide whether they're going to put up with the Clintons' behavior or whether they really want a "change".
Mark #34:
That is, by far, the best essay on the spirit of our country I have read in many years. Bravo. You have said everything I truly believe in.
Kahb Lee # 31
Funny you should mention voting machines. I believe the company designing and building most if not all of the election machines is Diebold. In 2004(I think) the president of Diebold - himself a large donator to the Republican party - stated that if he could fix it so that replublicans would win, he certainly would. I find that a scary comment from the man who sets up, designs, builds...etc the vary machines that we vote with. Now, i'm not saying things are fixed, but it is an unsettling comment.
Mark #34: Yes, I am not disputing for a second that we are the greatest, if not one of the greatest countries in the world. I was just simply alaying some fears I have noticed from some foreigners who seem to think that we either won't/don't criticise our own nation, or that we can't take it-therefore giving people who have never been met before the preconcieved lable of being cocky and (sometimes) rude. I expressed in my piece that most of what they would deam to be "criticism" is, indeed, vicious atacks, and I was merely giving, well anyone-Americans included-suggestions on how to (constructively) criticise another nation in the best way. As you rightly pointed out, their free raign to criticise us gives us free raign to criticise them. And hopefully they will be as receptive to ours as they hope for us to be of their's.
In respect of the British referendum on the EU constitution/treaty, as far as I know-and I've covered this story very closely over the past few years-that it is being very farociously debated in public. I think you would be very hard pressed indeed to find a UK citizen who is the slightest bit enthusiastic about it. When Brown decided not to call a general election this past September, the conservitive leader-the biggest opposition party to Labor-was very much upset, and not only promised that if elected he would hold a referendum-but pledged-and has subsiquently started-a campaign to force a parlamentary debate on whether to call an election for him (Brown). I don't think we have to stoop down to their level and atack them unfairly just because (some of them) atack us.-It is rude, and we are better than that.
Thanks for commenting on my post, though. You are a very tallented writer and should consider-if you don't already-using that in your profession.
The criticism of Clinton's use of the absentee ballot system was totally unwarranted, in addition to being malicious and insulting.
Older women think for themselves and vote their choice. A good campaign like Clinton's will get some people to vote who might like to, and have made a choice, but might not actually make the effort on voting day. And that's fair politics.
Mr Webb,
Though these are your personal comments, you are unneccesarily prejudiced against Obama. But i think every strong candidate, like Obama, will always attract flak and mud from those who want to pull him down, like clinton and their supporters including you. Thank you. America and the world is ready to go with Obama.
Mark (#34) wrote:
"That outsiders criticize America openly gives us liberty to equally criticize them. All you have to do is know the facts. For instance, the anti-democratic nation of Britain is in the throes of ceding its sovereignty to an extra-national superstate without even so much as a public debate. The prospect of a referendum in which the people actually had a chance to make their voice heard on the matter is the British government's worst nightmare but even their supposed "parties opposite" don't protest, not even meekly."
Certainly, criticise away - I doubt you're as anti-UK as I am (I'm English, living in Scotland). I'd say the UK's electoral system is perhaps the only one more unfair and illogical than that of the USA, among rich, politically pluralist states.
I support a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (which comes into force only if and when ratified by the member states' national parliaments), but two of your "facts" are wrong. First, the supposed absence of opposition: the UK Conservatives, the main opposition party (and not one I often find myself agreeing with) are demanding a referendum, as are rebel Labour MPs. Much of the Press is loudly anti-EU and pro-referendum, as are many bloggers and HYS contributors. The Labour government is now so weakened by scandal, indecision and poor morale that it could find itself unable to push the Treaty through. Second, the Treaty certainly does not surrender national sovereignty. It will, if ratified, make it possible for the first time for EU member states to legally and officially terminate their membership - something which I note caused a certain amount of brouhaha when some of the states of the USA tried it, thus demonstrating that it had sovereignty and they did not. There has been an instance where a territory ceased to be part of the EC (Greenland in 1985), but there is currently no regulated opportunity to leave the European Union. So all those wanting their countries to leave the EU should be campaigning for the Treaty of Lisbon to be ratified immediately. Complicated old world, isn't it?
Justin: In all your writings about the Bill Clinton campaign for the presidency I wonder why there has been no mention of the Dynamic Duo calling their old buddy James Carville back into the fold. Carville fits into their scheme of things admirably - he will do anything to get them elected. Can you imagine him as our Secretary of State? A master of diplomacy he ain't!
Just for the record, "Anonymous" of #40 was me. I didn't intend to post anonymously.
Anonamous: I'd say the UK's electoral system is perhaps the only one
more unfair and illogical than that of the USA, among rich, politically pluralist states.
Care to explain that please?-I Don't understand. I always thought that your's was the fairer system. Its far simpler-one MP per state, and the popular vote always wins. Now I know-given our geographical size-it is probably best to keep our system-but still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that just because a particular state is larger-therefore requireing more deligates to represent its vote to be "rich and ploralist"-hinting that the rich win no matter what is a bit of a stretch-and also (I think) untrue. My conclusion is that they are different-with ours being, of course, far more complicated.
One last note: to those who think that our system is disfunctional because of 2000, you should know that that only happened once-and only because it had to go to the supreme court-which was conservitave at the time.
How is this blog post against Obama as a few have suggested? If anything it is an indictment against a system that is open to corruption and that is being taken advantage of to win the nomination.
To those who are complaining against anti American comments and Mark (34) who defends his country according to his beliefs, thats fine.
I also defend my country but I can see faults in this system and they should be pointed out if America is to have the nominees that it really believes in rather than one pre voted for in a form of pressure selling.
My question would be to the American press who should be questioning this process, so why aren't they?
PS Mark (34) ceding our country to a superstate without even debate...and you call this facts? I dont know if you noticed the Eu is constantly debated, from immigration and laws to the Pound and the Euro.
PPS a bit of lateral thinking for you, Really why do we have to have separate countries? The whole planet has essentially the same goals, we could achieve them better if we worked together rather than separately rather than the "my dad is bigger than your Dad" approach that you seem to favour.
Mary #44 You asked me to explain why I say "the UK's electoral system is perhaps the only one more unfair and illogical than that of the USA, among rich, politically pluralist states." I'm happy to do so.
First, by "rich, politically pluralist states" I mean states that are rich, and have multi-party elections - the USA, Canada, Western Europe, Japan etc. I call the UK's system unfair and illogical because a party can win practically total political power on a minority of the votes cast - Labour got 35.2% in the 2005 general election and still got a large majority in the House of Commons. Also, we have, in the House of Lords, legislators there by right of inheritance (90 hereditary peers), because of their religious status (Church of England bishops), or as a result of patronage (the rest of the Lords). I criticise the USA's electoral system for the indirect election of the President via the electoral college, and the informal "college of the very rich", within which serious candidates must have considerable support if they don't belong to it themselves.
Mary: "One MP per state, and the popular vote always wins"
The UK doesn't really have anything directly equivilent to your states. The closes would probably be Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which all have their own parliaments/assemblies, with varying degrees of legislative and tax-raising powers. (England does not - which is one of the more anomalous and unfair aspects of our system).
MPs are elected by constituencies - small areas with roughly equal populations. Each constituency returns one MP (the one who got the most votes, although not necessarily getting the majority of the votes).
I don't know how you elect your congressmen, so I don't know which system is better.
Note that it is just members of the House of Commons that are elected. The other half of Parliament (the House of Lords) consists of bishops, judges, life peers, and a small number of heriditary peers.
As for presidential elections - we don't have them, or anything equivilent. The Prime Minister is simply the MP that his/her party has chosen as its leader. The only people who get to vote for the PM are his/her own constituents.