| |
The
secret is uncovered: the United States of America is not a democracy.
Not strictly speaking, that is. The United States is a republic.
We have something called "representative democracy," and it turns
out to be more heavily representative than most U.S. citizens
realized--not to mention the rest of the world.
We have
a constitutional institution called the Electoral College, with
an office of representatives called Electors. Here is how it works:
The
individual states compile popular votes for the office of President
(Nov. 7, 2000), then the Elector for that state casts the actual
ballot in the contest between candidates for that office about a
month later (Dec. 18, 2000). The interpolation of Electors has rarely
mattered; the margins are rarely close enough for any one Elector
to make a difference in the outcome. Not so, this year.
In this,
the last U.S. election for President of the twentieth century, the
margin of votes between the Democratic candidate and the Republican
candidate is so close that it all comes down to the 25 Electoral
College votes of the State of Florida. Whichever candidate receives
them, wins.
The
howls of outrage from the staffs of George W. Bush and of Albert
Gore are loud and they are shrill. The Bush camp says there may
be a constitutional crisis if we don't install G.W. as President-elect
immediately. Really?
The
fact is, Bush would not perform any function as President until
the January inauguration. We have a president in the form of Bill
Clinton. He will continue in his function until the inauguration,
in any case.
The
Gore camp cries out that the citizens may be divided by a rush to
install a president with questionable authority for assumption of
office. Really?
Do they
think this will be any more divisive than has been the internecine
warfare between the two parties, which recently resulted in the
impeachment of Bill Clinton for offenses, which hardly rise to such
a serious remedy? Believe me, no matter which candidate becomes
President, neither will have authority with the opposition.
There
are cries to reform the electoral process in the United States.
This reform will require the convening of a Constitutional Convention.
Each state would be required to vote on the reforms--after constitutional
scholars come up with some that seem workable.
Opponents
to a Constitutional Convention point out that it could take as long
as six years, by statute, to install new electoral processes. We
will have had another Presidential election in that time. And, they
ask: With the country polarized to such degree as it is, what is
there to suggest that the outcome of the votes on reform would be
any clearer than the current state of the vote on the presidential
candidates?
Still,
my take on the situation is that there may well be a remedy, and
it may well be a move toward more democracy. The Founding Fathers--T.
Jefferson, B. Franklin, et al--were not confident in the masses,
and so they saddled the country with constitutional buffers like
the Electoral College. Perhaps it's time to "kick out the jams"
and let real democracy, and majority rule, prevail.
We live
in a time far different from that in which the U.S. Constitution
was framed. We are more educated, we are instantly informed, and
we now have the means to transmit and compile votes electronically
at any distance.
A little
democracy is a dangerous thing. It tends to want more.
Copyright
© 2000 Robert Marcom. All Rights Reserved.
Robert
Marcom is a political junkie and regular contributor to *spark-online.
comment?
discuss this article on our
discussion
board
|
