There is no need for any hurry in the count for the US presidency. The framers of the US Constitution deliberately put a gap between the election date and the swearing in of the new President. In the meantime, President Bill Clinton goes about the task of chief executive ensuring that the governance of the United States run smoothly. Indeed, at the very moment officials are counting the crucial vote in Florida, Mr Clinton is engaging in talks at the highest level on the situation in the Middle East. Whoever takes the White House will no doubt take up where he left off.
The Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, has announced that the outcome in Florida will not be announced until next Friday. The 25 electoral college votes in Florida will determine the result. Vice-President Gore might have won more of the popular vote, but the presidency is determined by voting in the Electoral College which comprises delegates from each state. The number of delegates is determined by the number of members of Congress (both House and Senate) a state has. The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure smaller states got a reasonable say because every state has a minimum of two senators and one representative. It gives the least populous states like Hawaii three votes. On the other hand, California has 54.
Under the US system there is no proportional or preferential voting. The candidate with the most votes in a state takes all of the Electoral College votes of that state. Thus Mr Bush might win Florida by a handful of votes, collect the 25 Electoral College votes and together with the other states he has won win the presidency even though Mr Gore has more votes overall.
It is a rare thing. It last happened in 1888. It might result in changes to the system, perhaps causing more states to divide their Electoral College vote in proportion to the candidates’ votes. But the rarity of the event would militate against it.
Before alarm bells ring, it would be as well to reflect that every electoral system yet devised carries with it aberrations and unforeseen consequences. The translation of the people’s will through elected representatives into policy and law is at best an inexact exercise.
That the winner will not be know for more than a week after the poll is a reflection of the closeness of the election rather than the electoral system. In fact, it takes a couple of weeks to get the precise result down to the last vote in every presidential election. If the result is not close, the winner is known well before the last vote is counted.
The events in the US are not a farce or fiasco. Nor are they causing disruption. They are revealing democracy at work. At worse the transition teams will get a couple of weeks less than they otherwise would have had.
The close result has also prompted comments about a lack of legitimacy or mandate. However, the likelihood is that whoever takes the White House will in a very short time put the closeness of the election behind him and be judged on actions taken in office. Opinion polls a year or two into the term will have a greater influence on Congress than the November 7 vote.
Rather than pointing at the Electoral College, there are other elements of US democracy that need attention, particularly the practical requirement for successful candidates to raise huge sums of money from the corporate sector which leaves them beholden to those interests upon election.