During America's long wait for a conclusion to the Presidential election, voices have been raised against the electoral college system. They raise, perhaps unwittingly, an issue of territorial representation that ought to be discussed in this country, too. In retrospect, our electoral reformers rode rather roughshod over regional interests.
It is likely that the loudest American criticism of the electoral college method in the present impasse has come from states with big populations: New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Those states voted for the Democrat candidate, Al Gore, giving him on election night the most votes in the country as a whole. But the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, won far more states.
While the size of each state's delegation to the Electoral College reflects its population, the system is slightly weighted towards the less populous states. The effect is usually to translate a win by a narrow margin of the popular vote into a decisive majority of the Electoral College, much as the Westminster system used to do here when power was awarded to the party that won the most electorates.
But it was always possible that in a tight race the winner of the popular vote over the whole country would not win the most states or electorates. That happened here in the elections of 1978 and 1981, both won by National though Labour won slightly more of the vote. Now the United States faces that prospect and there is some concern about the next President's "legitimacy."
The concern is that Mr Bush will be elected though Mr Gore has the most votes. Does that mean that geographical considerations no longer count for much in the American mind? Or it could be that the legitimacy discussion in the metropolitan media has not heard the voices from the mountains and prairie?
Legitimacy is vitally important in any system of government that rests on the will of the people. It is the deep-seated recognition, especially by those who have not voted for the winning party, that it has the right to rule.
So long as the rules of the contest seem reasonable and fair, both sides will accept the result. An orderly society relies as much on that acceptance as on the enforcement of its laws.
During the campaign in this country for MMP much was made of the elections of 1978 and 1981. They were exhibit A in the indictment of first-past-the-post. Yet at the time, they did not cause a crisis of legitimacy. The result attracted criticism in academic circles but it would be hard to say there was a seething sense of unfairness in the country at large. Public pressure for electoral reform did not arise for another 10 years and for quite different reasons.
People wanted to curb the power of single-party government; they were not particularly intent upon overriding territorial electorates with a single nationwide vote. That was one detail of the system offered to them which did not attract much discussion. Perhaps it deserved more.
Lightly populated regions should not be overwhelmed in national politics. There are territorial interests as deserving as any minority of a voice in their nation's affairs. In this country the South Island used to have a guaranteed number of seats in Parliament. It still does but they are electorate seats and those are now less important in the scheme of things. It is no coincidence that support for MMP was weaker in the rural areas, particularly in the south.
Seats in Parliament are now awarded to parties according to the votes they can gather from a single, nationwide electorate. Many of those given seats have not won a territorial constituency and some do not even stand as candidates in any locality. They sometimes assume an ethnic, gender or some other constituency of interest.
Parties try to ensure their election lists have a geographic spread and usually give each list MP notional responsibility for a locality. But they are no substitute for an MP whose fate depends upon the voters there. Unfortunately, even members elected in constituencies are no longer dependent on them. Too often now, MPs rejected by their constituencies return to Parliament on a party list.
In the United States, the Constitution will protect the interests of less populous regions. The Electoral College cannot be dumped without the approval of three-quarters of the states. Quieter parts of this country might envy them.
Herald Online feature: America votes
Florida Dept. of State Division of Elections
Democrats and Republicans wage war online
<i>Editorial:</i> Small populations still count in US
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.