If we consider an electoral system in which the leaders are elected by the majority of the citizens' votes as democratic, the system of the United States is not democratic. The candidate that wins the majority of votes does not necessarily end up being the “president-elect." It happened with Al Gore versus Bush Jr. and now with Clinton versus Trump. Clinton received 947,579 more votes than Trump.*
In the United States one does not vote directly for the president but rather for members of an electoral college. The candidates of the electoral college for each state are listed on the ballot below the name of the presidential candidate for whom they will vote for. The system would be correct if in each state one would elect a number of electors proportionate to its population, but it is not that way. For example, Wyoming has a population of 500,000 people and 3 electoral votes, in other words, each electoral vote represents 166,000 people whereas California has a population of 34 million people and 55 electoral votes, therefore each vote represents 600,000 people. Because of this, the vote of a Californian is worth four times less than the vote of a Wyomingite. In other words, not all "American citizens" are equal because the votes of some are worth more than those of others. Even worse, the electoral votes of each state are not distributed proportionately according to the popular votes that each presidential candidate obtains but instead, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the candidate that receives more popular votes gets all the electoral votes of the state.
This system served well at the beginning of the United States' founding due to the fragility of its federation, but that was centuries ago. The United States of Mexico and the Federative Republic of Brazil are also federations and the vote for the president is direct and equal for all citizens. In countries whose unity is more fragile than that of the United States, such as Spain and the United Kingdom, the votes of all citizens have equal value. In order to choose their "electoral college," in this case the Parliament, which elects the president of Spain or the prime minister of the United Kingdom, proportionality is maintained. The vote of the Catalonian is equal to the vote of the Castilian, and that of the Scotsman equal to that of the Englishman. All citizens are equal since their vote equally counts.
Besides that, the U.S. Congress does not democratically represent its people because the House of Representatives (congressmen) has 435 members that represent "congressional districts" that were created by considering a district for each 30,000 inhabitants, according to the Reapportionment Act of 1929. But in 1929 (87 years ago) the U.S. had a population of 130 million people and now it has 330 million. The number has tripled and has been redistributed; some districts today are unpopulated and others are overpopulated. Each congressman does not represent the same number of citizens. Even worse is the number of senators, which is a total of 100, two for each state. In New York, which has 20 million inhabitants, each senator represents 10 million people, whereas in Vermont with 600,000 inhabitants each senator represents 300,000. In the Senate, the vote of a senator who represents 10 million is equal to the vote of a senator who represents 600,000. This disproportion is not seen in the prestigious democracies of Europe, Canada or Australia, for example.
Just because this system has functioned this way for a long time and American citizens have submitted themselves to these "rules of the game" does not mean that it is good or democratic. Even worse is to consider it a "model of democracy." Not all accept it in the United States and there are voices of protest that are growing in strength against an electoral system that does not reflect the true popular will, nor does it truly sustain "representative democracy.”
*Editor’s note: As of Nov. 25, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote has surpassed two million.
Si consideramos como democrático un sistema electoral en el que los gobernantes son electos por la mayoría de votos de los ciudadanos, el sistema de EE. UU. no es democrático. Quien gana la mayoría de votos no resulta necesariamente como el “presidente electo”. Sucedió con Al Gore vs. Bush hijo y ahora Clinton vs. Trump. Clinton obtuvo 947,579 votos más que Trump
En EE. UU. no se vota directamente por el presidente, sino por miembros de un colegio electoral. Los candidatos al colegio electoral por cada estado van en la boleta bajo el nombre del candidato presidencial por el cual esos electores votarán. El sistema sería correcto si en cada estado se eligiera un número de electores proporcional a su población, pero no es así. Por ejemplo, Wyoming tiene 500,000 habitantes y 3 votos electorales, o sea que cada voto electoral representa 166,000 habitantes; en cambio California tiene 34 millones de habitantes y 55 votos electorales, o sea que cada voto electoral representa a 600,000 habitantes. De esa manera el voto de un ciudadano de California vale 4 veces menos que el de un ciudadano de Wyoming. Es decir, no todos los “ciudadanos americanos” son iguales, pues el voto de unos vale más que el de otros. Peor todavía, los votos electorales de cada estado no se distribuyen proporcionalmente según los votos populares que obtiene cada candidato presidencial, sino que —exceptuando Maine y Nebraska— el que obtiene más votos populares se lleva todos los votos electorales del estado.
Ese sistema pudo servir al inicio de EE. UU. por la fragilidad de su federación, pero eso fue hace siglos. Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y la República Federativa de Brasil son igualmente federaciones, y el voto para presidente es directo e igual para todos sus ciudadanos. En países cuya unidad es más frágil que la de EE. UU., como España y el Reino Unido, los votos de los ciudadanos valen todos iguales. Para elegir su “colegio electoral” —en estos casos el parlamento— que elige al presidente de España o al primer ministro del Reino Unido, se hace guardando la proporcionalidad. Vale lo mismo el voto del ciudadano catalán que el del castellano, y el del escocés que el del inglés. Todos los ciudadanos son iguales, pues su voto cuenta igual.
Pero además, el Congreso de EE. UU. no representa democráticamente a su pueblo porque la Cámara de Representantes (diputados) tiene 435 miembros, que representan “distritos congresales” que se crearon considerando un distrito por cada 30,000 habitantes, según la Reapportionment Act de 1929. Pero en 1929 (hace 87 años) EE. UU. tenía 130 millones de habitantes y ahora tiene 330 millones, se han triplicado y redistribuido; unos distritos hoy están despoblados y otros superpoblados. Cada diputado no representa al mismo número de ciudadanos. Peor es el caso de los senadores que son 100 en total, 2 por cada estado. A Nueva York con 20 millones de habitantes lo representa un senador por cada 10 millones, mientras que a Vermont con 600,000 habitantes lo representa un senador por cada 300,000. En el Senado, el voto de un senador que representa a 10 millones vale lo mismo que el de otro que representa a 600,000. Esa desproporción no se da en las prestigiosas democracias de Europa, Canadá o Australia, por ejemplo
Que este sistema tenga muchísimo tiempo de funcionar así y que los ciudadanos de EE. UU. se han sometido a esas “reglas del juego” no significa que sea bueno ni democrático. Menos considerarlo “un modelo de democracia”. En EE. UU. no todos lo aceptan y hay voces de protesta cada vez más fuertes contra un sistema electoral que no refleja la verdadera voluntad popular, ni sostiene realmente a una “democracia representativa”.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The Electoral College was supposed to protect America from stupid choices, like Bush Jr. over A. Gore, and D. Trump over H. Clinton, but it is clearly no longer capable of doing that. The only thing it can protect America from is real democracy.
The Electoral College was supposed to protect America from stupid choices, like Bush Jr. over A. Gore, and D. Trump over H. Clinton, but it is clearly no longer capable of doing that. The only thing it can protect America from is real democracy.