Making A Difference

On The Sharp Edge Of Power

The hair-thin result could spur demands for a review of the US Electoral College system

Advertisement

On The Sharp Edge Of Power
info_icon

It was easily the most extraordinary week in American politics. Accustomed to instant election results, and dependent on opinion polls and analyses of TV anchors, the people of the United States watched with bated breath as the electoral pendulum swung between US Vice-president Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush through much of last week. Bitterness and anger rocked the democratic system, allegations of election irregularities sent the political temperature soaring and the faith in the peculiar electoral college system stood eroded. And among the casualties of the election, one was the powerful American media.

Says Michael Krepon, president, Stimson Center, "This is an unusual election, to say the least. One likely consequence of a hair-thin election outcome and minimal majorities on Capitol Hill is that major policy departures would be very difficult to implement." Adds Anupam Srivastava, director, South Asia Program, University of Georgia, "If Bush wins Florida and the presidency, the demand to remedy or remove the electoral college system will grow again." Indeed, never before have Americans waited for so long to get a new president. With the Florida recount still giving Bush a narrow lead over Gore till late last week, the country had to wait an extra week for the counting of the postal ballots for a result. Indications, though, were that Bush was poised to corner most of the 2,900-odd absentee ballots of US servicemen stationed abroad.

But even this might not hasten Bush's celebrations. By Friday afternoon, eight lawsuits had been filed in state and federal courts challenging the Florida results. Six of these cases are in Palm Beach County, whose voters sought repolling as they said the ballot paper, designed in the shape of a butterfly, confused them into punching it twice. Consequently, some 19,000 votes were invalidated. Throughout the Florida recount, sparks flew between Republicans and Democrats. Said Don Evans, chairman of the Bush campaign, "One of the options they (Democrats) seem to be looking at is a new election. Our democratic system calls for a vote on election day, it does not call for us to continue voting until someone likes the outcome." Countered William Daley, the Gore campaign manager, "We've come to believe there were serious and substantial irregularities.... We'll be working with voters from Florida in support of legal actions to demand some redress for the disenfranchisement of more than 20,000 voters in Palm Beach County."

Experts here seem to endorse the Republican view that allegations of irregularities have little basis. For one, the ballot papers were approved by a party panel which included Democrat representatives. Also, the ballot design was published in the local newspapers and people could have protested before November 7. Indeed, the tone for the ongoing acrimony was set on the same night, a Tuesday, courtesy TV channels. Relying on their exit polls, they rushed to announce early Tuesday evening that Gore had taken Florida. The Bush campaign team claims this misled undecided voters on the West Coast who had not cast their ballot yet. But the biggest goof-up came two hours past midnight on Wednesday. Channel after channel and newspapers announced: "Texas Governor G.W. Bush was declared elected the 43rd President of the United States." Those who went to bed had a rude shock the next morning when they woke up to find the result had been kept in abeyance. The reason: the election authorities couldn't decide which of the two candidates should get the crucial 25 electoral college votes of the sunshine state.Till then, Gore had got 260 electoral college votes and Bush 246—whoever crossed the magic figure of 270 was to become the president.

It wasn't any less taxing for those who were awake through the dark and cold night—the candidates themselves and their supporters thronging campaign headquarters. When TV channels broke the news about Florida swinging the Republican way, Gore promptly called up Bush to concede defeat. At Al Gore's Nashville campaign headquarters in Tennessee, a gloomy silence descended on thousands of his followers who had gathered there braving chilly winds and rains. But it wasn't over. When Gore was just two blocks away from the HQ, his cellphone rang. On the line was a state department official from Florida, breathlessly telling him that the margin between him and Bush had dropped drastically to less than 1,000 votes. He advised Gore to not concede defeat because the Florida State Law provided for automatic recounting in an electoral victory notched on less than 1 per cent of the total votes polled. Gore promptly returned to his campaign HQ. His first move was to call Bush, who was waiting to announce his victory. A combative vice-president reportedly told Bush, "I'm not conceding defeat since the margin has dropped sharply since I last talked to you." Angry exchanges between the two ensued, and the conversation ended abruptly.

Meanwhile, the news about the Florida law had Gore's followers at Nashville chanting for a recount. Daley electrified the crowds by declaring, "I've been in politics a very long time but I don't think there's ever been a night like this one. An hour ago, TV networks called this a race for Governor Bush. It now appears their call was premature." In contrast, the crowd at Bush's mansion in Austin became restive. Bush had to send Evans to pacify them.

There was quite another battle being fought on many TV channels. For one, the news about the recount had TV commentators promptly running down the idea in this age of computers. The recount in Florida later in the week, and the differences in the lead between the first and second counting, showed the system is susceptible to error. Indeed, two days of drama exploded the myth of infallibility surrounding TV anchors.

But what's amazing is that Gore should be so close to defeat. The prosperity ushered into the country during the eight-year Clinton administration should have ordinarily ensured Gore an easy walkover. Perhaps what rendered his task difficult was the belief that a more active role for Clinton in the campaign could alienate the conservatives who were supposedly miffed over the Monica Lewinsky affair. The photofinish, and the controversy surrounding it, has once again revived the debate about the need to revamp the system of electing the president. The moot point is: should the president be elected through a direct popular vote? Currently, in the US presidential election, voters technically choose between slates of electors that represent each party. The winning electors from all states together constitute the 538 members of the Electoral College, which meets in December to officially elect the president.

The system's basic problem arises from the fact that the party bagging a majority of votes in a state also wins all its votes in the electoral college. Says Srivastava, "Apart from Nebraska and Maine, where parties get electoral college votes in proportion to their popular votes, all 48 states and Washington DC follow the ‘winner-take-all' system". This creates a piquant situation. For instance, though Gore trailed Bush by a few hundred votes in Florida, he still runs the danger of losing its crucial 25 electoral votes—and with it, the presidency."I consider the so-called Electoral College a brilliant 18th century device that cleverly solved a cluster of 18th-century problems," Yale Law School professor Akhil R. Amar told the House Judiciary Committee in a hearing on Electoral College Reform in 1997. Amar cited three reasons why the framers of the American Constitution adopted the Electoral College system. First, very few candidates then had a countrywide reputation and ordinary citizens didn't have an adequate network of information to make informed choices. Second, it was believed a populist presidency could degenerate into demagoguery and possibly dictatorship. Third, popular election could have then upset the balance of power among states. With women and blacks debarred from voting, it was feared that a state could ‘recklessly' empower itself by enfranchising new groups of voters. Amar had gone on to argue that "none of these arguments work today".

Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, however, thinks a direct popular election could marginalise the minorities. As Gans testified to the House Judiciary Committee, "The African-American population perhaps comprises 12 per cent of the electorate. But in several Southern states, they account for nearly a majority of eligible citizens and comprise significant and, on occasion, pivotal minorities in several northern states. The electoral college insures, in national elections, that their views must be taken into account." But a direct popular election could encourage many candidates to enter the fray, fragmenting the votes and consequently enhancing the clout of the minorities. Under the existing system, voters are chary of voting a third candidate, knowing that it would be difficult for him or her to win a state's electoral votes and also a majority of the electoral college. They at best remain spoilers, a la Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.

Says Kanti Bajpai, visiting fellow, Brookings Institution, "The US public does not seem to be excited about either candidate or party and many just stayed away (49 per cent). It remains to be seen if the third party challenge can be mounted in the next election." In fact, sceptics say, this is unlikely till the Electoral College is reformed to represent popular voting, as is the case in the states of Nebraska and Maine. Till then, the American system will be rocked by uncertainties and a lack of political consensus.

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement