US elections
The USA is a democratic federal republic with
-
Legislative Branch (Congress;
made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives)
-
Judicative Branch (Supreme
Court)
-
Executive Branch (President
of the United States)
They are connected in a system of “checks and
balances” to control each other.
The President is elected by the Electoral
College, a
committee of electors based on a majority vote system. He
is elected for four years and can be re-elected for another
four years.
US elections 2004
The election of the 43rd
US-President
took place on November 2nd
2004.
Candidates were George W. Bush (Republicans), John Kerry
(Democrats),
Ralph Nader (independent) and 44 other candidates.
President Bush and Kerry (who won in his party the
Primaries,
State
Conventions and
National
Convention) were
the only candidates with serious winning-chances.
While
the thinly populated “heart land” in the middle
and the south of the USA voted for Bush
(red),
Kerry was able to win in the west- and east coast
(blue).
In the end, the “Swing-States” (states with no
indisputable political characterization) like Ohio and
Florida decided the election.
|
Presidential Candidate
|
Elector votes (total votes)
|
| - George W. Bush | 286
(62,040,610)
|
| - John Kerry | 252
(59,028,111)
|
| - Ralph Nader | 0
(463,653)
|
Comment: the election system
After the chaotic US-election in 2000, the Newspaper
New
York Times demanded
a new election system. At that time the people had to make
their choice between George W. Bush and ‚Al‘
Gore. Although Gore reached 48,4 % of all votes (Bush: 47,9
%) and got 500.000 more votes then his opponent, Bush
became president. Based on a complicated system, many
people began to disclaim their majority
representation system
and to advocate a proportional
representation system
like most countries in Europe have.
Where
are the pros and cons of these two different systems in
general?
The last election in Germany showed, that with the
proportional representation it is often difficult to
constitute a working government. A lot of parties split up,
new parties were found, majorities in parliaments are often
not clear and the danger of successful radical parties
rises. This was an important reason for the failure of the
Weimar Republic. The political history of the US proves,
that the majority representation is always able to
guarantee stable governments. The disposition of a state in
electoral districts creates a connection between voters and
candidates. The voter decides more likely on a candidate
then on a party, so the candidate is engaged to his voters
and not only his executive council.
But the election in the US also shows the weakness of this
system: In California for example it was sure that Gore
would win this state. The Democrats saw no reason to make
campaigns and big discussions, the Republicans saw no
chance to win and concentrated on other states. The
political arguments and contentions in so called
“safe districts” die. The foundation of new
parties is nearly impossible, because it is much more
difficult for them to establish between the existing, big
parties.
The proportional representation inhibits cartels of the big
parties and guarantees political dynamics. But the most
important disadvantage of the majority representation is
the disparity of the votes: If you vote in Texas, your vote
is “more worth” then your vote in California.
So it is possible, that a party/candidate wins an election,
although another opponent has all in all more votes.
In my opinion, Germany made with the combination of both
representation systems the best choice. It combines the
advantages of both ideas.
The most important fact is to secure the justice.
Particularly the proportional representation guarantees the
equality of every voter.