The process is also archaic and pregnant with all kinds of possibilities. The election stretches on for far too long and, considering the time it consumes, it is so much sound and fury signifying so little, leaving the final outcome to a handful of battleground states and to electors who mostly remain nameless. But then, the US Constitution was framed all of 225 years ago, when the population was below 4,00,000. Today, it is a country of 308 million (the total number of voters in the UP polls was 120 million, by and large the same number that turned out for the US election).
For the uninitiated, the next US President will actually be elected in December, on the “first Monday after the second Wednesday”. That is when the 538 electors of the electoral college will cast votes in the state capitals and elect the president and the vice-president. What American voters do on a similarly determined Tuesday in November every four years is to elect these ‘electors’, as listed by the parties and candidates. If the electoral college arrives at a tie, the decision is left to Congress, with the Senate electing the vice-president and the House of Representatives the president.
In other words, in a tie, the Democrats would have a vice-president of their choice if they control the Senate, while the Republican nominee would be president if the gop has a majority in the House. If that is not convoluted enough, nothing in the US Constitution binds electors to cast their votes on party lines. Alarmed at past betrayals, some states have enacted laws to penalise ‘faithless electors’, some with a fine, others with disqualification. But constitutional experts are by no means sure the penal provisions are constitutionally valid and won’t be struck down by the Supreme Court.
The framers of the Constitution were unsure whether the people or Congress would be better suited to make the wise choice. They opted for a compromise and an indirect election via the electoral college. Each state is allotted a number of electors along census lines, with California getting 55 and North Dakota getting just three. But the “winner takes all” provision ensures the party that gets more electors in a state gets all its listed electors into the electoral college. So, with Obama’s win in California, all the state’s 55 Democratic electors get to cast their votes for him next month, though they are not legally obliged to. In 2008, John McCain secured over five million votes in California, but it amounted to nothing since Obama took a slender lead and bagged all the electors.
In 2000, Al Gore actually secured 5,00,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush, but fell short of getting the required 270 majority of the 538 electors into the electoral college, which made Bush president. Gore wasn’t the first ‘winner’ to have lost, but since such results have been rare (four times out of 51), the US believes the model works well. The bottomline: a candidate can lose the popular vote and yet win the presidential race; conversely, they might win the popular vote and still lose the presidency!
Even American politics can be confusing. The Republicans oppose government spending, would leave it to the free market to create jobs and provide healthcare. Yet, the party’s contender, Governor Romney, pioneered Obama’s vision of universal healthcare in his own state. Massachusetts remains the only state to have implemented it so far. So what were they sparring about? The Blue states, we are told, are wealthier and lean Democrat-wards; the Red states are poorer and yet deeply Republican, though the latter are believed to favour the rich! The Blue ones, therefore, could well be better off with far less taxation and less federal spending on poorer states. But they seem to favour spending in poorer states because of a shared ‘America above all’ vision.
The ‘beauty’ of the election is the variety of issues put on the ballot in states for approval. Most of these get there only after lobbying, which requires funds. This year they ranged from repealing the death penalty and constitutional protection for hunting and fishing, to targeting those cruel to animals, to a pledge to improve grammar in the Constitution.
Despite the complexities, it was fun to follow the election, not only because it was a spectacle, but also due to the sophisticated math models used by the psephologists, the campaign micro-management, Jay Leno’s jokes and a dogged media who pursued the candidates relentlessly. Who wouldn’t follow the “Truth Meter” of the St Petersburg Times, which had a slot named “Liar, Liar, Pants on fire” for the most outrageous statements made by candidates. Mitt Romney, it turned out, was four times more prone to utter a lie than Obama!
Uttam Sengupta’s column (Yo, Your Ballot’s Showin’, Nov 19) on the disparities in the US election was revealing. But democracy can’t be an end in itself, as the example of India amply shows. Despite democracy, we have a political dynasty that has had much power over the decades. Again, the ‘first past the post’ system means those elected are not really representative of the electorate. The huge sums spent by the candidates compels them to make a profit when elected, and above all our democratic system gives legitimacy to criminals.
Bahu Virupaksha, Pondicherry
It is much simpler to switch to elections where candidates are chosen by the popular vote. The US should try and use it at a future date.
Ashok Lal, Mumbai
The column is a lot of hyperbole masking one overriding reality—now even the US is voting on ‘caste’ (read ethnic) lines. Obama is now just another OBC/Dalit leader, an American Laloo or Mayawati.
Shubhang Shankar, Delhi
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Much simpler, at some future date, to switch to election by popular vote.
A lot of hyperbole to mask one simple reality - now even the US is voting on caste (read ethnic lines) - Obama is now just another OBC / Dalit leader, an American Laloo / Mayawati / Mulayam.
Oh it was Jews again silly.
In the case of India, for eg., democracy is a failure ( although 'perfect') because of judicial failure.
Ultimately (as the Chinese have proven ), what counts is not who rules, but whether the rulers care more about the subjects, or just about winning.
Democracy cannot be an end initsefl as the example of India shows. India, like North Korea has a dynasty which comes to power and the first past the winning post system means that those elected are not really representative of the electorate. The huge sums of money spernt int the elctions comples the MLAs and MPs to make money by all possible means. And also democracy in India covers up crime by extending democratic legitimacy to criminals who are able to use money power and goonds power to propel themselves into the legislatures and parliament. This beinbg the case it would be better to have a sysytem like China where the citizens needs are taken care of without the sham of democracy.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT