Are American Elections Free And Fair?

In order to address the issue of whether elections in the United States are indeed free and fair, one must first recognise the fact that, as Gary Jacobsen and Samuel Kernell have notably argued, “the demand for political offices is greater than the supply.”1 The vast array of political offices to be held in the United States, from library board members to the highest echelons of congress and the Presidency itself vary in freedom and perceived fairness, though all are grounded in the principles of democracy and the popular opinion of ‘the people’. It appears, however, that while the generally favourable image of American elections and the procedures of gaining public office appear sound and justifiable, there are some areas where the transparency and the true will of the people can, and in some cases has, been challenged. The debate over these issues seems best to be conducted having examined the issues from both the point of view of the candidate and that of the electorate.

If one examines firstly the most revered (if not always coveted) office in the United States, the presidency, the somewhat puzzling system of the electoral college is frequently highlighted as the connection between the popular vote itself and the final election process. While the college itself ensures that issues of demo-geography and the significance of the states themselves are checked and maintained, the fundamental barrier between the electorate and the final result is often a matter of mutual trust in both the electors and the system. One could argue is not perhaps the optimum method of maintaining the structure of the world’s most influential election process, yet as Robert Bendiner notes, “nobody has a kind word for the outmoded electoral college, but only professors and cartoonists get really worked up about it.”2 Examples of erroneous elector activity were present throughout the southern states during the mid-twentieth century, but such incidents have also been noticed in elections as recent as 2004. The fact that electoral voters, who number a minute percentage of the general electorate, can act against the will of ‘the people’ and indeed the state, as was seen in 2004 when a Minnesota elector voted for John Kerry’s running mate John Edwards for the presidency itself as well as for the office of Vice President.3 That occurrence did not have any form of impact on the final result of the election following George W Bush’s clear victory in the electoral college, but in a season of elections such as has been witnessed in 2008 where prior to the election itself a 269-269 tie for the presidency was more of a possibility than had been assumed for many decades, it could be argued that such action as that of the Minnesota elector threatens the institution of the popular vote. Similarly, in the controversial election of 2000, the abstention of Washington DC elector Barbara Lett-Simmons in protest at the lack of representation for the capital reduced the Gore-Lieberman ticket’s electoral college count by one vote.4 Once again, while this was never likely to be an issue with the final result given the 25 votes from Florida that decided the election, the fact that an elector can abstain despite the intention of one third of the District of Columbia’s electorate indicating her vote should be directed towards the Democrats is alarming given the office which is under contest.

That the electoral college has been retained this long, one could argue, is merely down to the complicated nature of uprooting a system enshrined in the constitution. Former Indiana Senator Birch Bayh suggested in 1972, during a brief period of serious consideration by congress for the revision of the system, that while “it is true that the electoral college was originally designed as a select assembly of independent electors, but that notion soon became obsolete with the rise of the party system.”5 The recent presidential election has perhaps highlighted a course of action that could be implemented to address the block-voting of states that is often a criticised characteristic of the electoral college. The states of Maine and Nebraska are currently the only two states to split their electoral college votes by congressional district. While the electoral results are still undeclared, projections following November 4th 2008 show that despite Maine voting entirely for the Democratic candidate, the generally Republican state of Nebraska will cast one of its electoral votes for Barack Obama thanks to the overwhelming support for the Democrat in the suburbs of Omaha.6 This distinction showing the demographic electoral trends of the state could arguably be applied to many other states in the union. The case of Pennsylvania in the recent election is a clear example, where Barack Obama’s victory in the state was attributed largely to his support at opposite ends of the state in the cities and suburbs of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The more conservative, central portion of the Keystone State may well have garnered more electoral college votes for the Republican ticket had the votes been split down to congressional districts or another form of division. Whether or not this will be implemented, such an idea highlights the potential flaws of the current winner-takes-all system of election and a credible claim to the notion that the elections are not entirely free and fair.

Those who argue, like Sayre and Parris, that “the debate over the electoral college is not a debate over whether the President should be elected by the popular vote…the present system and all the seriously considered alternatives have long rested on a popular vote,” may well be correct in as far as the college generally votes with the popular result in that particular state, yet the weighting of particular states over others has lead to a misbalance based entirely on population centres.7 Joseph Kallenbach has noted alarmingly that the influence that one has on an election is perhaps even a question of chance, as “a voter who happens to have the good fortune to reside in one of the populous “pivotal” states has a far greater opportunity to influence the outcome of a presidential election than one who resides elsewhere in the nation.”8 As a result, the notion that a candidate can secure the high density population areas and therefore ‘pass the post’ despite an overall loss in the popular vote is not only a problematic hypothesis but an occurrence that has happened four times in electoral history. Even if one discounts the imbalanced results of 1800 and 1824 as early problems in the infant system, Rutherford B. Hayes’ victory of 1876, Grover Cleveland’s defeat in 1888 and the result favouring George W. Bush in 2000 have served as alarming examples of a victory for the candidate favoured by a minority in the popular vote.

In the United States Senate, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution perhaps serves as an example to the methodology of presidential elections. With the direction that “…The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…,” the office of a United States Senator is for many the most truly democratic office in the United States. With the recently resolved Senate election in Alaska and the ongoing electoral confusion in Minnesota, the importance of every vote is highlighted prominently and shows how, if this was implemented in the presidential system, results would perhaps be less susceptible to controversy. With the most recent reports still showing a 42.0%-tie of the popular vote for the Minnesota seat between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken9, with Franken's chief counsel Marc Elias claimed the latest count showed the Democrat to be ahead by only 22 votes and the fact that that is of significance at all shows the power of each individual vote that the electoral college system may perhaps dampen.10 One could certainly argue that not only does an alternative system to the electoral college equalise the impact of each vote, but stirs excitement and engagement in the political process.

The issue of funding in US elections has increased as a point of contention in the discussion of the freedom and fairness of the system in recent cycles but with the financial performance of the Obama campaign in the recent presidential election, the ability of those with fewer funds to participate and receive a stage upon which their agenda can be fairly exhibited is diminishing quickly. One could use the example of public financing in the recent general election to great effect in showing either the utility of the Obama fundraising technique or the inability of the McCain campaign to generate the same attention and backing. While Obama’s argument of allowing citizens to donate voluntarily rather than claiming pre-allocated fiscal funds in the traditional way seems justifiable and applaudable, the precedent seems clear that funding will now finally dominate presidential campaigns, diminishing the chances of a third party candidate. The chances of such a candidate succeeding without the funding capabilities of, for example, Ross Perot have been illustrated in the fortunes of Ralph Nader. Despite having made a noticeable impact on the 2000 election, this appears to have been the peak of his capabilities. Few would dispute the argument that only the well-oiled machines of the Republican National Committee and its Democratic counterpart, in conjunction with the candidate’s campaigns, appear able to generate the funds that will be required in future elections.

It is certainly true that the election system in the United States is an evolutionary machine, with improvements in fairness and freedom coming into fruition over the course of time. While the system of election thankfully is void of voter restriction based on race, problems persist in the age of the internet with attempts to block voter participation. During the final weekend of the most recent election cycle, false fliers with a counterfeit commonwealth seal were circulated in Virginia, saying fears of high voter turnout had prompted election officials to hold two elections — one on 4th November for Republicans and another on 5th November for Democrats.11 While these ‘dirty tricks’ may well be inevitable and unfortunately difficult to prevent, the issue of democracy across all of the United States’ territory may well prove to be a new issue in the debate of freedom and fairness. The fact that the US territory of Puerto Rico holds a delegate vote in the primary systems of the presidential races, but not a vote in the general election is often contested by the argument that only admitted states may vote for the presidency, yet the District of Columbia, however, holds 3 electoral votes in the general election following the 23rd amendment to the constitution in 1961. It could be argued that following President Truman’s approval of U.S. Federal law 8 U.S.C in June 1952, Puerto Ricans born after 13th January 1941 are eligible to vote if residing in the mainland as votes extend to the population, not the territory. Despite this technicality, the majority of Puerto Ricans are clearly restricted as they reside on the island itself. If Puerto Rico, with its population of almost four million12 (similar to that of Oregon), were permitted electors, it would appear that candidates would have at least seven more electoral votes to contest, undoubtedly increasing the freedom and fairness of the election with more of the total US population entered into the eligible electorate. Peter Fliess noted as early as 1952 that this is not just a supposition among political scientists, rather an issue for the Puerto Rican leadership: “…they consider the present status as transitory. The fight for the attainment of statehood is to be continued.”13 Interestingly, when population figures are inspected it would also appear that Guam, which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both actively contested in the 2008 democratic primaries, would receive at least one electoral vote as well.14 If the US election system is to be truly free and fair, one could argue strongly that those territories awarded participation in the initial stages of an election cycle should be granted involvement in the general election system itself.

Elections in the United States are certainly among the fairest in the world, if not only for the fact that there are more elected offices in the US than in any other nation. There is of course, as with any system, room for improvement particularly at the highest levels of the democratic system. The threats to the acceptability of the election system now seem to be rooted not in race or religion but in finance and the issues of wider participation. The impact of Barack Obama’s rejection of public financing resulted in his ability to raise and utilise over $100,000,000 from 1.1 million contributors while the McCain campaign was restricted to the $85 million available from the taxpayer.15 A fundamental issue for the American political system is now whether or not this change in the race for the highest office will permeate downwards and have a negative effect on the chances of those candidates in lower elections with the least amount of funding available. The mayoral races in the city of New York are already showing alarming levels of campaign funding with the current incumbent in a position to mount even a credible candidacy in a presidential election, and one wonders whether or not finance will go beyond the already significant role it has played throughout history and begin to dictate the results to the detriment of the issues. Economic troubles aside, it is also arguable that the elections at a federal level will not be totally fair and free until all those living under the direction of the US government play a part in the democratic system. With population increases in US territories and the continued migration from rural to urban environments in the continental United States, the level of influence such territories are able to exert in the future may well trigger a constitutional crisis. With ever-increasing claims of liberty and participation in US election cycles, those inhabiting offshore territories may well have a claim to participation in light of what may become a new federal hypocrisy. In a nation that identified itself with the objection to taxation without representation may in the future find reflections of its former self in its dominions. Alexis de Tocqueville noted that “…there is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one…” and such questions are still asked of the electoral system.16 Elections in the US are at an advanced stage of fairness but will remain a perennial work in progress. Until no other political questions are asked, American elections can never truly be labelled free or fair.
______________

References:

1 Jacobsen, Gary C and Kernell, Samuel, Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections, (1983; New Haven, CT; Yale University Press) p19
2 Bendiner, Robert, White House Fever (1960, Harcourt, Brace and Co) p130
3 2004 Minnesota Certificate of Vote, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/vote_minnesota_01.html, accessed 1st December 2008
4 2000 District of Columbia Certificate of Vote, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/members.html#dc, accessed 1st December 2008
5 Bayh, Sen Birch (D-IN), (Foreword); Longley, Lawrence D and Braun, Alan G, The Politics of Electoral College Reform (2nd Edition), (1975, New Haven, Yale University Press) pvii
6 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/allocation.html, accessed 1st December 2008
7 Sayre, Wallace S and Parris, Judith H, Voting For President, (1970, Washington, Brookings Institution) p19
8 Kallenbach, Joseph E, Our Electoral College Gerrymander, (Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 4, No. 2 [May, 1960]), p163
9 New York Times elections map, http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/senate/map.html accessed 6th December 2008
10 Sam Stein, “Franken Ahead 22 Votes Now, Campaign Says” from The Huffington Post 3rd December 2008: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/franken-ahead-22-votes-no_n_148100.html accessed 6th December 2008
11 Reported by the Associated Press, cited from MSNBC News, 3rd November 2008: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27508967/ , accessed 3rd December 2008
12 2007 US Census estimates, http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html, accessed 3rd December 2008
13 Fliess, Peter J, article: Puerto Rico’s Political Status Under Its New Constitution from The Western Political Quarterly, Vol 5 No. 4 (December 1952), p653
14 Using data collected from http://www.census.gov/, accessed 3rd December 2008
15 Tapper, Jake, ABC News ­­­­- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/final-official.html , accessed 3rd December 2008
16 De Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America (1848) (Edition: 1998, Ware, Wordsworth Editions)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bayh, Sen Birch (D-IN), (Foreword); Longley, Lawrence D and Braun, Alan G, The Politics of Electoral College Reform (2nd Edition), (1975, New Haven, Yale University Press) pvii
Bendiner, Robert, White House Fever (1960, Harcourt, Brace and Co) p130
De Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America (1848) (Edition: 1998, Ware, Wordsworth Editions)
Fliess, Peter J, article: Puerto Rico’s Political Status Under Its New Constitution from The Western Political Quarterly, Vol 5 No. 4 (December 1952), p653
Jacobsen, Gary C and Kernell, Samuel, Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections, (1983; New Haven, CT; Yale University Press) p19
Kallenbach, Joseph E, Our Electoral College Gerrymander, (Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 4, No. 2 [May, 1960]), p163
Stein, Sam, “Franken Ahead 22 Votes Now, Campaign Says” from The Huffington Post 3rd December 2008: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/franken-ahead-22-votes-no_n_148100.html accessed 6th December 2008
Sayre, Wallace S and Parris, Judith H, Voting For President, (1970, Washington, Brookings Institution) p19
Tapper, Jake, ABC News ­­­­- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/final-official.html , accessed 3rd December 2008
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/members.html#dc, accessed 1st December 2008
http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/electoralcollege/2004_certificates/vote_minnesota_01.html, accessed 1st December 2008
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/allocation.html, accessed 1st December 2008
http://www.census.gov/, accessed 3rd December 2008
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html, accessed 3rd December 2008
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/senate/map.html accessed 6th December 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27508967/ , accessed 3rd December 2008