CKNW Editorial
for November 9, 2000

The American election had us all transfixed. The pundits and pollsters said it would be close but who’d have thought it would be that close?

There are a number of interesting things about the system not least of which is that voters directly elect their president, sort of. Sort of, because of the electoral college system. But you have to wonder what would happen in Canada if we directly elected the prime minister? The answer is that unless you changed the rest of our system so that the legislature was independent of the executive, there would be no change. The prime minister under our system now exercises more power than the president of the United States so direct election would simply confirm what we already have and would add to the reality of power, the trappings as well.

I said "sort of" because of the Electoral College. This came about because the United States, from the beginning was just that – the union of states. In the checks and balances that is the wonder of their system, the executive power of the president is constrained in many ways. The legislature controls the purse strings though the executive get to spend it. The president, like Congress, is constrained by the Supreme Court of the United States which members are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But the president is also constrained by the fact that he must win not a majority of votes, but a majority of states on a loaded vote basis. Although the College members now seem bound to vote in accordance with the popular vote in the state that sends them, on paper they need not do so and in the early days didn’t feel so bound. It is, to use the golf parlance, match play, not medal and there have been instances of a minority president, one who gets less than a majority of popular votes, yet wins in the Electoral College.

But there is something else that Canadians ought to pay attention to. Because the executive, which is to say the president and vice president, have a separate base of power than the Congress and each have their own offsetting powers, party discipline in Congress is much looser than it is in Canada. If a measure fails in Congress the government doesn’t fall – it’s just on to the next order of business. Though it has never happened and won’t happen here although it was close, what if the two major candidates were tied in the Electoral College?

The constitution then throws the matter into the House of Representatives.

But, you might say, that means Bush is elected because the Republicans control the House.

Not so fast. Remember that the Representive is not beholden to the leader of his party. The party leader exercises no direct no control over him so that discipline is fairly loose. The majority of Republicans would vote for Bush and the majority of Democrats would be for Gore. But there well could be some swing votes. Remember, the representative, every two years, is accountable directly to his constituency. What if he’s a Republican yet Gore had the most votes in his state or indeed over-all? He might well be under pressure from his constituents saying look, we voted for you because you’re a good Congressman but we voted for Gore to be president and we want you to do the same. There would be all manner of local concerns come into the picture. Now I’m not saying that Bush would not carry a Republican House but it would be no slam dunk.

In Canada, likewise the MP doesn’t have to support his party’s leader but if he does not, his political career will be shattered by a prime minister who will throw him out of the party which in this country is the equivalent of political extermination. No such power rests with a leader of the Democrats or Republicans.

But, let’s get real you say. Every Congressman would vote for their party leader.

Well, there was a time when just this sort of issue arose and it happened with President Andrew Johnson who became president when Lincoln was shot. He was a bad president and an unpopular one and the House brought impeachment proceedings against him. When the Bill of Impeachment came to the Senate it looked like a slam dunk. The Bill needed 2/3 to pass and after all the private polling and whipping by the respective party leaders was over it looked like there was only one undecided, a Democrat from Kansas named Edmund Ross (Johnson was a Republican). At the end of the day Senator Ross, casting aside partisan considerations, voted against his party and Johnson was acquitted.

The parallel is not by any means precise. Ross was a senator who in those days were appointed by the state not elected. But it does demonstrate – as did the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the fragility of party discipline under a republican system.

It might not be all that bad an idea if Canadians thought about this a bit as they are a little over two weeks away from electing 301 ciphers who will do as they are damn well told.