Dear Editor,
At last the elections are over in the USA. The results are accepted by the losers, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. President Obama has four more years in the White House. But the elections did not really change the power representation in Congress or the overall political climate in the United States. The Democrats slightly increased their majority in the Senate. The Republicans held on to their majority in the House of Representatives. So, despite the dire economic situation in which the United States finds itself, the prospect of political gridlock might continue for some time until political self-preservation overcomes the legislative body - most of whom will return to the polls two years from now.
The results of the presidential election were surprising because most popular polls indicated a far closer popular vote. Some respectable polls even suggested that President Obama would win the Electoral College vote while Mr Romney would win the popular vote, a sort of reverse of the situation in 2000 when Mr Gore won the popular vote, but Mr Bush won the Electoral College vote, albeit with a little brotherly intervention and the Supreme Court, which initiated a series of curious announcements that seemed to contradict common sense.
In the Monday morning quarterbacking that has been taking place, some interesting observations are being tackled. Some have considerable merit. Others border on the lunatic.
A number of folks have started to question the nature of polling and the inordinate reliance on them by politicians in the United States. Polls are extremely complicated operations. Some of the shortcomings of polls stem from their inordinate reliance on the basic honesty that individuals will truthfully speak over the telephone. So in some states like Ohio and Florida, the polls taken during the campaigning period varied significantly from the exit polls taken on election day. The conclusion is that polls are not necessarily inherently flawed, but with so much money demanding instant results it simply was a question of he who paid the piper called the tune.
The amount of money collected and spent in elections in the United States borders on the obscene. It is estimated that altogether candidates across the United States spent more than US$6 billion in the last elections. The presidential candidates each spent almost a billion dollars. That is far too much, even in the best of times. It borders on the criminal in bad economic times.
That excessive expenditure was not reflected in a higher voter turnout. For the leading democracy in the world, the USA voting record does not compare favourably with the leading Latin American states. The USA 2012 vote was nine per cent lower than in 2008, and even lower than in 2004. So increased electoral spending is not the answer for increased voter participation.
Three other interesting observations related to the increasing divisions among voters who are divided by age, gender, religious affiliation, and a myriad other groups. The ageing white groups that heavily supported the Republican Party and Mitt Romney represent a minority.
The nature of future political elections based on Electoral College results may favour the Democrat Party over the long run. Within four election cycles it is possible that in addition to the areas they now hold, the Democrats could also dominate Florida and Texas. That could be the end of presidential political campaigns in all 50 states (or however many exist at that time.) When 12 states alone can decide a presidential election, the time has come to reconsider the unrepresentative Electoral College system as the decider of who becomes president. It is time for one man, one vote in any democracy.
Verona King
Baltimore, Maryland
USA
US elections — time for one man, one vote
-->
At last the elections are over in the USA. The results are accepted by the losers, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. President Obama has four more years in the White House. But the elections did not really change the power representation in Congress or the overall political climate in the United States. The Democrats slightly increased their majority in the Senate. The Republicans held on to their majority in the House of Representatives. So, despite the dire economic situation in which the United States finds itself, the prospect of political gridlock might continue for some time until political self-preservation overcomes the legislative body - most of whom will return to the polls two years from now.
The results of the presidential election were surprising because most popular polls indicated a far closer popular vote. Some respectable polls even suggested that President Obama would win the Electoral College vote while Mr Romney would win the popular vote, a sort of reverse of the situation in 2000 when Mr Gore won the popular vote, but Mr Bush won the Electoral College vote, albeit with a little brotherly intervention and the Supreme Court, which initiated a series of curious announcements that seemed to contradict common sense.
In the Monday morning quarterbacking that has been taking place, some interesting observations are being tackled. Some have considerable merit. Others border on the lunatic.
A number of folks have started to question the nature of polling and the inordinate reliance on them by politicians in the United States. Polls are extremely complicated operations. Some of the shortcomings of polls stem from their inordinate reliance on the basic honesty that individuals will truthfully speak over the telephone. So in some states like Ohio and Florida, the polls taken during the campaigning period varied significantly from the exit polls taken on election day. The conclusion is that polls are not necessarily inherently flawed, but with so much money demanding instant results it simply was a question of he who paid the piper called the tune.
The amount of money collected and spent in elections in the United States borders on the obscene. It is estimated that altogether candidates across the United States spent more than US$6 billion in the last elections. The presidential candidates each spent almost a billion dollars. That is far too much, even in the best of times. It borders on the criminal in bad economic times.
That excessive expenditure was not reflected in a higher voter turnout. For the leading democracy in the world, the USA voting record does not compare favourably with the leading Latin American states. The USA 2012 vote was nine per cent lower than in 2008, and even lower than in 2004. So increased electoral spending is not the answer for increased voter participation.
Three other interesting observations related to the increasing divisions among voters who are divided by age, gender, religious affiliation, and a myriad other groups. The ageing white groups that heavily supported the Republican Party and Mitt Romney represent a minority.
The nature of future political elections based on Electoral College results may favour the Democrat Party over the long run. Within four election cycles it is possible that in addition to the areas they now hold, the Democrats could also dominate Florida and Texas. That could be the end of presidential political campaigns in all 50 states (or however many exist at that time.) When 12 states alone can decide a presidential election, the time has come to reconsider the unrepresentative Electoral College system as the decider of who becomes president. It is time for one man, one vote in any democracy.
Verona King
Baltimore, Maryland
USA
US elections — time for one man, one vote
-->