Hillary
won the majority of vote, Donald won the presidency - the losing side
attacks the electoral college, the winners defend it. It is hard to
avoid the impression that these views have more to do with the momentous
political preferences than with intellectual honesty. Indeed, although
the electoral college might be a quirk of American history, it would be
hard to argue that it is somehow inferior or unfair as compared with the
proportional system. In fact, once we start talking about "fairness",
it becomes a philosophical debate which may not have a unique solution
and in which Republicans and Democrats will certainly never agree.
The
debate about the electoral college however distracts from seeing the
elephant in the room - the deep polarization of political views and the
reluctance of Americans to listen to each other. One could even argue
that such polarization tends to produce disputable outcomes across all
possible electoral systems. Let us look at how this problem plays out in
parliamentary democracies, which might at first seem very different
from the US system.Weak governments
It is not uncommon in multi-party parliamentary democracies that a party wins most vote in the elections, but not enough to have the majority in the parliament. In absence of ideologically close coalition partners this party may fail to form the government.^1 In other cases the president (or Queen/King) has to pick the prime minister from the party that might not have won the majority of vote but has more chance to form a viable coalition.^2
Some countries allow for a "weak government" (or "minority government") - when the winning party rules, relying on attracting a few allies from opposition parties on case-by-case basis in order to pass the laws. This kind of deadlock is familiar to Americans by the recent standoff between President Obama and the "do nothing" Congress.
The power of dwarfs
When several parties do succeed in forming a majority coalition, the larger coalition partner often turns out to be a hostage of smaller parties, which may refuse to vote along with the coalition or even threaten to leave it, thus bringing down the government.^3 Again, those Americans who follow the politics, have a pretty good idea about the power of the few senator needed to overcome the filibuster, or that single judge in the Supreme court.
Doubtful remedies
These
problems have produced the debates that are rather similar to the
debate about the electoral college in the US. One possible remedy is
giving a "bonus" to the most successful party in the elections,
guaranteeing it majority in the parliament. It certainly makes easier
for this party to pass the laws, but simply because this party is given
here more power to impose its will on the rest.^4 The situation is
familiar to the Americans by the debate about the limits of the
president's executive action, recess appointments, etc.
Another approach is raising the threshold for parties to enter the parliament, making it more difficult for small parties to qualify.^5 Both solutions have been criticized as undemocratic.^6
Another approach is raising the threshold for parties to enter the parliament, making it more difficult for small parties to qualify.^5 Both solutions have been criticized as undemocratic.^6
Local elections vs. popular vote
Perhaps
less noticeable, but more serious issue is how the parliament is
elected: in some countries it is formed from locally elected candidates,
who happen to belong to a particular party, whereas in others voters
vote directly for the party. When thinking about Congressional elections
Americans may feel that they are more used to the former system, which
provides fair representation to all communities/regions, just like the
senators and congressmen in the US. But in parliamentary democracies
this system also has all the shortcomings of the electoral college.
Some
countries opt for a combination of the two approaches, not unlike the
US, where each state elects two senators but a variable number of
congressmen.
To summarize: I tried to show that the
political problems in the US are not specific to the US electoral
system. More generally, I believe that politics is more about ideas,
compromises and diplomacy than about technicalities of the elections.
------------------------------
Examples:
^1 Belgium has set the record by remaining without a government for 589 days
https://www.washingtonpost.
^2
Israeli election of 2009 is a good example, featuring both the
inability of the biggest party to form a coalition, as well as the later
coalition formed around the second biggest party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2009
^3
European Union joint decision-making provides multiple examples to this
end, e.g. when a single Belgian region was blocking the CETA agreement.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
^4 The idea of such a "bonus" was rejected by Italians in a recent referendum
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/
^5
Angela Merkel's robust party has been plagued for years by inability of
its smaller allies to qualify for the seats in the German parliament,
putting at risk Ms Merkel's chancellorship
^6 Turkish voting system is an example here
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/turkey-the-worlds-most-unfair-election-system