Spotlight on issues in ‘world’s greatest democracy’

Congrats to the American voters for ‘running the good race’. They have proved that they were more than alert to the issues at the heart of the latest US presidential election that was drawing to a nail-biting close at the time of this writing. This is proof that democracy in the US is, indeed, exceptionally vibrant.

Right through the poll the spotlight was on what are considered key battleground states, where the tussle for the ballot between incumbent President Donald Trump and challenger Joe Biden of the Democratic Party was said to be tightest. Florida is one such state and it was won by Trump. The state’s importance in the presidential race is enhanced by the fact that this is the key state where former President George Bush Jnr just managed to get past challenger Al Gore by some half a million votes in 2000 to eventually win a controversy hit election.

But at the time of writing the current presidential election is by no means over though Biden is ahead of Trump in Electoral College votes. The challengers are running ‘neck to neck’ and this is a sign of America’s ‘democratic health’. For us in the global South, what is of considerable interest is the fact that we are having in these US polls trends proof that the US voting population is a highly ‘thinking’ constituency. It is a sign of a country’s democratic vibrancy that presidential contenders would not easily receive ‘an avalanche’ of votes and as a result have in place a head of state and government who would come to be seen as almighty. On this score, the US voter has clearly won.

However, this presidential election would also come to be seen as one where the institution of the Electoral College and its role in the election of a US President came sharply into focus. Its pivotal role hogged the limelight in the 2016 presidential poll as well where Democratic contender Hillary Clinton polled three million votes over Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College count and lost the presidency as a consequence.

However, if the ‘popular vote’ was the criterion for winning, Clinton would have clinched the presidency. There is an anomaly here and the US is yet to sort it out. As a US authority on the issue was quoted saying, if the winner was to be decided by the Electoral College why have an election at all. But the setback for the Democrats in 2016 was of such a magnitude that it has spurred the Democratic camp into thinking in terms of seeking to do away with the Electoral College when comfortably in power. The die would be cast if the Democrats become the majority party in the Senate as well and help pass a constitutional amendment for the purpose.

It’s the ‘winner takes all’ rule in elections to the Electoral College that is proving most controversial. As is known, the US President is voted in ‘indirectly’, in the sense that the popular vote at state level for a presidential candidate, in the first instance, sends to the Electoral College representatives of the presidential candidate in question’s party in the relevant state.

Some 41 days after the presidential election these representatives are expected to gather together in the Electoral College and following close deliberations vote for their choice of President. It is expected to be an exercise of deep deliberation, but what in reality happens most often is that representatives ‘rubber stamp’ their presidential candidate if he or she wins at the national level. Thus, is the US founding fathers’ rationale for the Electoral College usually defeated. After all, the Electoral College is expected to stringently examine the suitability of the relevant winning candidate for the position of President. The latter is not expected to be elected mechanically.

Moreover, in terms of the ‘winner takes all’ rule, a presidential candidate who wins against his rival at state level is entitled to bag all Electoral College votes in the state in question, disregarding the number of votes commanded by his rival. Thus, Hillary Clinton lost very narrowly to Trump in California in 2016 but the latter ended up winning all 55 Electoral College votes and the former none. This is the reason why a candidate who does exceptionally well in ‘swing states’, such as California, Texas and Florida, could be considered as way ahead of his rival in the election. But in a democracy, every vote is of the greatest value besides being of equal value. Here’s where the rub is. The ‘winner takes all’ condition clearly violates vital democratic values.

The US will need to seriously address these issues in the days ahead and look to resolving them. However, the founding fathers of the US could be said to have had the interests of democracy at heart when the ‘indirect’ method of electing a President through the Electoral College was conceived and established. Essentially, they wanted the President to be elected not as a result of ‘a rush of blood’, as it were, to the voters’ heads, as often happens through the ‘direct’ vote when most voters are ‘carried away’ by propaganda, for example, but as a consequence of rational deliberation. Clearly, the electoral system needs changing in accordance with core democratic norms and values.