Q1. Which of the weaknesses of the American electoral system identified by the international observers is the most dangerous to democracy in the US? Explain.
Q2. What was the most important reason for choosing the electoral college for the Constitution?
Q3. Why is any reform to the Electoral College extremely unlikely?
International Election Observers Release Report On Upcoming US ElectionsBy Joe DeCapua
Washington
Voice of America, 21 October 2004 <http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2004-10/2004-10-21-voa85.cfm> [VOA is financed by the US Government as an international news service]
International observers are recommending the US election process be reformed to boost public confidence and guarantee fair elections. After two weeks of meetings with citizens groups, government officials and policy experts, they’ve released a report entitled “Election Readiness: It’s Never Too Late For Transparency.”
The human rights group Global Exchange invited the twenty election observers to the United States. The group says it was concerned about lingering issues from the controversial 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. These include allegations of minority voter disenfranchisement, the role of money in politics and voting machine reliability.
Jason Mark is the Communications Director for Global Exchange.
He says, "Our single and most important goal with this project is to boost public confidence in our democracy and in US electoral systems. Because the experience of Global Exchange and other democracy watchdog groups around the world has demonstrated that the presence of independent, non-partisan, foreign election observers can play a key role in what I believe is an unprecedented effort to sponsor a non-governmental civil society observation of the US elections."
The delegation members are observers not monitors, meaning they have no mandate to interfere should they spot any possible voting irregularities.
The group’s nearly 50-page report says, “In many respects, the electoral landscape has improved since 2000.” It praises efforts by local and state officials to find creative solutions to electoral problems. However, the report also says, “There are a number of existing problems that pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the 2004 General Election.”
Caerwyn Dwyfor Jones – an electoral management expert from Wales – says a key recommendation is non-partisan election supervision.
He says, "We believe partisan oversight and administration of elections is not the international norm as it builds in the possibility for deception of conflict of interest. The delegation recommends that states establish independent and impartial bodies to oversee to administer, oversee and certify elections."
Dr. Brigalia Bam, chairperson of South Africa’s Independent Electoral Commission, was also surprised at the partisan make-up of US election commissions.
She says, "Ithought that every country in the world has got an independent body that manages and supervises elections. I didn’t realize that a person in my position could also be a candidate. That surprised me, really, really surprised."
Dr. Bam is also concerned about US laws preventing some former felons from voting.
"Considering that the United States is one of the countries that have the oldest democracies in the world, a country of freedom, and I never realized such restrictions. That unfortunately leads to sub-categories of citizens and to a large exclusion of people of color," she says.
Other recommendations include having a paper trail to verify, if necessary, the results of the new touch screen computer voting machines; the training of poll workers on the correct distribution of provisional ballots; and public financing of elections.
The delegation says there’s not enough time to implement the recommendations for the November election. But it says, “It’s never too late for transparency and fair play.” Adding, “All democracies grapple with how to ensure that every vote counts…and that political contests occur on a level playing field.”
A second team sponsored by Global Exchange will observe November voting in Florida, Missouri and Ohio - three key states in the election’s outcome.
------
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
By William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration
(The views expressed here are solely those of the author and are not necessarily shared by the Federal Election Commission or any division thereof.) <http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf>
In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:
● was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
● contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
● believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
● felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").
How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?
Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president. One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.
A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.
Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.
The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party….
November 10, 2000
In Defense of the Electoral College
by John Samples
John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute. [The Cato Institute is a self-described “libertarian” public-policy think tank: they are a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that advocates for free markets and limited government; in other words, it is a well-respected conservative group.]
<http://cato.org/dailys/11-10-00.html>
Critics have long derided the Electoral College as a fusty relic of a bygone era, an unnecessary institution that one day might undermine democracy by electing a minority president. That day has arrived, assuming Gov. Bush wins the Florida recount as seems likely.
The fact that Bush is poised to become president without a plurality of the vote contravenes neither the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. The wording of our basic law is clear: The winner in the Electoral College takes office as president. But what of the spirit of our institutions? Are we not a democracy that honors the will of the people? The very question indicates a misunderstanding of our Constitution.
James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.
Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these twofold divisions -- the separation of powers and federalism -- provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.
What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn’t that principle essential to our form of government? The Founders’ handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that?
The filtering of the popular will through the Electoral College is an affirmation, rather than a betrayal, of the American republic. Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Nonetheless, such fidelity will strike some as blind adherence to the past. For those skeptics, I would point out two other advantages the Electoral College offers.
First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas. In the 2000 election, for example, Vice President Gore could have put together a plurality or majority in the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and California.
The victims in such elections would be those regions too sparsely populated to merit the attention of presidential candidates. Pure democrats would hardly regret that diminished status, but I wonder if a large and diverse nation should write off whole parts of its territory. We should keep in mind the regional conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.
Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an important part of our federalist system -- a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power, but even in our own time we have found that devolving power to the states leads to important policy innovations (welfare reform).
If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic.
March 7, 2002
The New York Times
Bush Zigzags After a Vote in California
By RICHARD L. BERKE
LOS ANGELES, March 6 — When President Bush called Bill Simon Jr. this morning to congratulate him on winning the California Republican primary for governor, he only indirectly acknowledged that his preferred candidate, Richard J. Riordan, was overwhelmed in an upset on Tuesday that just weeks ago was inconceivable to the White House.
As Mr. Simon, Mr. Riordan and a roomful of partisans listened by speakerphone at a unity breakfast here, the audience laughed as Mr. Bush said, "I've got a lot of friends out there — including the folks you defeated."
Promising to travel to California to work to drive out Gov. Gray Davis, Mr. Bush added, "I know you can beat Gray Davis and I want to help in any way I can."
But many Republicans concede that the reason Mr. Bush quietly backed Mr. Riordan, a social moderate, was that he and other leading Republicans considered Mr. Riordan far better able to appeal to independents, women and Hispanic voters in November than Mr. Simon, a conservative seeking his first office.
Yet for all the sway of the White House, the outcome was not close. Mr. Simon, a wealthy investor who is the son of the late Treasury Secretary William E. Simon, drew 49 percent. Mr. Riordan, former mayor of Los Angeles, took 31 percent, and Secretary of State Bill Jones, 17.
Mr. Simon's victory was distressing for Mr. Bush and his aides who had recruited Mr. Riordan, even though he is less similar ideologically but viewed as having a better chance against Mr. Davis. The outcome also raised questions about the White House strategy to broaden the Republican Party's base in California and to inject itself in primaries.
Former President Gerald R. Ford, who was close to Mr. Simon's father, who was in his cabinet and Richard M. Nixon's, praised him in an interview today for a "first-class campaign." Still, he said, Mr. Simon was a long shot because of his conservative stands and inexperience.
"I wouldn't write him off," Mr. Ford said. "I'd just say he's got a hell of a challenge."
Mr. Ford, who said Mr. Simon would visit him on Friday at his home in Rancho Mirage, said that when he was president and in his retirement he followed "a firm policy" not to take sides in primaries.
Asked about how the primary outcome affects the White House, Mr. Ford said: "If their candidate loses, it's an adverse reflection on their judgment. Secondly, it's embarrassing that they endorsed one and that they picked the wrong candidate."