|
The
surreal outcome of the U.S. presidential elections draws our attention
to the infinite and often contradictory ways in which the world applies
democracy.
If
there were still any doubts about the fact that no electoral system
is perfect, the surreal events of the disastrous U.S. presidential elections
dispelled any uncertainties.
In
reality, the American presidential election system, which places greater
importance on States than individuals, works well with so-called “large
numbers”, where the distance between candidates is great enough to avoid
disputes, or if a dubious local result has no bearing on the final outcome
of the race for the White House... But when every vote counts, as it
did on the 7th of November, all the shortcomings of the system materialise
and you may even go as far as comparing the world’s only superpower
to a banana republic, without fear of contraction.
For
the first time ever, the fight between Bush and Gore took two weeks
of anguish to reach the bitter end during which time the most extraordinary
facts came to light.
Each
of the thousands of counties that make up the United States is free
to decide on its own voting method which range from “Italian-style”
manual ballot papers to those with mechanical perforations, from electronic
to postal voting and voting via Internet, with a dazzling array of variations
in between. Where they are permitted, postal votes are valid even if
they arrive ten days after election day, providing that the date stamp
demonstrates they were posted on time.
There
is no federal electoral law that all counties must abide by, except
for a law delegating the choice of President not to popular, national
vote but to a college of “great electors” selected by individual States
according to the size of population.
There
are 51 different electoral laws, one for each member of the federation,
often inspired by different criteria, especially when it comes to the
obligatory registration of those wishing to exercise their right to
vote.
Do
recent events prove that the U.S. electoral system, which dates back
to the end of the 18th century, is too complex and outdated? It is true
that the system is heavily flawed, that the different laws generate
confusion and suspicion in other States and that this may affect the
democratic legitimacy of those elected. However, the system has the
merit of continuity: it was born with the nation and has accompanied
that nation, for better and for worse, for over two centuries and, in
a sense, has contributed to making America great. It is part and parcel
of the country’s heritage. Any attempt to change things would lead to
upheaval and interminable diatribes between federalists and localists,
champions of central power and tireless defenders of State autonomy,
traditionalists and the more efficiently-minded.
The
huge variety of electoral systems throughout the world demonstrates
not only the lack of a formula for the perfect democracy, but that it
is impossible to agree on the requirements needed for a system to be
considered acceptable. The so-called Westminster model, based on a single-ballot,
pure majority vote, exported by Great Britain all over the world during
decolonisation, has served its fatherland well. Nevertheless, it has
lent itself, and continues lending itself, to all manner of abuses of
power and collusion in numerous African and Asian countries.
The
system has often been criticised in white Commonwealth countries with
an affinity with the United Kingdom. New Zealand abandoned the system
after a century (although it regretted the decision almost immediately)
because it failed to represent the Maori minority. English-speaking
Canadians complain that in French-speaking Quebec, the uninominal college
favours separatists.
Whilst
purists may consider the various systems of proportional representation
to be the utmost in democracy insofar as they give equal importance
to all votes, they also tend to break up political parties with adverse
effects on the stability of governments. Hence the attempt by many countries
to rectify its failings by introducing a 3, 4, 5 or even 10% threshold
of the popular vote.
The
real problem with all changes to electoral law is that since no system
can be considered to be neutral, it ends up by favouring one political
party or another and in so doing, democracy as a whole looses credibility.
For
instance, nobody disagrees that France is a democratic country. Yet
before arriving at the present “majority two-ballot system” that is
much admired in Italy, the French changed the rules of the game four
times in half a century. The aim was either to promote stability or
give a helping hand to a flailing party in power or, more recently,
to oust out Jean Marie Le Pen’s National Front party considered unconstitutional
by his opponents despite being voted by 12-15% of the electorate. To
understand the potential hazards of changing the electoral rules, we
don’t need to look far. Ever since the referendum proposed by Segni
which resulted in Italy abandoning the system of proportional representation
set up at the birth of the republic in favour of a mixed system - 75%
majority and 25% proportional for the House of Deputies with a further
variation for the Senate -we haven’t stopped arguing for a minute and
we have been inundated with proposed reforms of every conceivable kind.
For two or three years, there were endless debates on the relative merits
of a pure majority system (UK model), a majority two-ballot system (French
model), a proportional system with a minimum threshold (German or Spanish
models), Chancellorship, and so on... Not surprisingly, each party fought
not for the best overall system (which does not exist) but for the system
that was expected to give the best chance of success in the next elections.
The
problem is that the effectiveness of an electoral system may vary with
circumstances, especially in a system such as ours that is yet to settle
down. At the end of the day, the Centre-Left coalition campaigned for
and attempted to approve a certain reform against Italian tradition
and with the sole votes of the majority because, after signing an agreement
with the Lega Nord, the Casa delle Libertà coalition realised that the
infamous “Mattarellum” proposal would guarantee them the best results.
If we look further afield to the European Union and future common home,
we see that the Fifteen have fifteen different electoral systems. Four
Members (Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg and Portugal) have opted for pure
proportional representation (with various variations on the theme).
One Member (Ireland) has a highly complex proportional system with transferable
votes. Five Members (Spain, Austria, Denmark, Greece and Holland) have
a proportional system with a minimum threshold, though each system has
been given a particular slant to meet individual objectives.
One
Member (Germany) has adopted a highly scientific mixed proportional
system that is unique the world over and an authentic brainteaser.
If
we move on to the three Members that have adopted a majority system
of some kind, we see that only the British system can be summed up in
a nutshell. The 659 candidates of the 659 constituencies who obtained
the greatest number of votes are eligible for the House of Commons.
Given that in France (as here in Italy), political parties abound, the
French have adopted a two-ballot system where an absolute majority is
required in the first round. Candidates who achieve over 12.5% of votes
are eligible to stand in the second round where a simple majority is
sufficient. Supporters of this system maintain that whilst it enables
all parties to take part in the first round without distorting the final
outcome, it promotes pacts between “similar” parties in the second round
so simplifying the parliamentary process.
In
actual fact, it also favours a market of “stray cows”, but since it
also guarantees a high degree of governability, it is worth taking into
consideration. As far as the Italian system is concerned, it must be
said that the current mix of majority and proportional votes is an entirely
Italian invention that cannot be found anywhere else in the world.
This
does not necessarily make it wrong. It simply means that the balance
of power in Italy cannot be found elsewhere.
Which
system gives voters the best idea of which government their votes will
go to and who that government will be lead by? Generally speaking, the
answer should be the “majority system” (at least until the deputies
change sides), but we cannot ignore the German exception to this rule.
All in all, there is something for everyone. Many apologies to the United
States which, despite the chaos, gave us all a lesson on democracy that
not everyone would have been capable of.
|
