The Written Word
for January 17, 2001

There was a great deal of hee hawing from Canadians when the United States showed some difficulties in deciding who would be sworn in as the next president next Tuesday. But what the hell are we laughing at? We who just elected another absolute dictator for the next five years to rule over 60% of the country that doesn’t want him, have very little in my judgment to snicker at.

Now in what I’m going to say, I don’t defend the way the American system actually worked because I do not agree with the United States Supreme Court’s decision. But let’s take a look down south and see what really happened.

First a word on the Electoral College, something that baffles some Americans and all Canadians. To understand it you must understand that the country is called the United STATES of America, not the United Voters of America. And think of this in contrast to the pathetic excuse for a Senate we have in Canada. The Electoral College came about in 1787 as a result of the great compromise where the American Senate was created to represent the States equally so as to offset the tyranny of the majority that straight “rep by pop” would bring. It arose out of a compromise proposed by Benjamin Franklin. This means, in golfing parlance, that the game is match play not medal. Mr Bush is by no means the first president to win without taking the popular vote and far from being the first to win with a minority – the last being Bill Clinton. The Electoral College, to which each state sends electors in accordance with the number of seats it has in Congress, ensures that the big states, like New York, Pennsylvania and California don’t, by themselves, say who the top executive will be.

The next thing – and perhaps the most important fact – is that while the legal process was happening there was no blood in the streets. While a nation patiently watched the matter proceed, it was business as usual. No need to call out the Army or the National Guard. The United States, with all its many blemishes, operates under the Rule of Law even when the most powerful position in the world is at stake.

What ought to be of considerable interest to Canadians is that if the election had been thrown into the House of Representatives – which has happened twice before – George W. Bush would have had no slam dunk even though the Republicans are in a majority.

This is because, with the division of powers, party discipline in Congress is much lighter. Where the government doesn’t fall on a lost vote, there is no need for ironclad discipline and thus it doesn’t exist.

Let’s take a for instance. Assume a state has 5 electors and it elected 3 of 5 Republicans but for president supported Mr Gore. Under the unit rule all five electors would be bound to vote for Mr Bush – but would they? The Democrats would lobby those three Republicans pretty hard and this is what they would say. “The public elected you to Congress but they want Mr Gore in the White House. If you vote to put Mr Bush in, contrary to the voters’ wishes, they will have a crack at you in two years time. Think long and hard on that before you support Mr Bush for president.”

As I said, while I very much admire the way the Americans permitted the process to happen, I find the United States Supreme Court decision hard to understand. How the electors to the Electoral College are selected is a state matter. The Florida Supreme Court decided that there must be recounts. Just how the US Supreme Court gave itself jurisdiction over what was clearly a state matter is not only beyond me but confounds many US constitutional experts as well.

The bottom line, however, is that the United States understands its regionalism and makes allowances for it. In Canada, two provinces out of 10 can cram their wishes down the throats of the rest. Maybe instead of chuckling at the Americans we should think on it a bit.