The economist September 18 2004

American elections

No way to run a democracy

The country’s electoral machinery is badly in need of repair

AMERICANS have a schizophrenic attitude to “American democracy”. On the one hand, many see democracy as a quintessentially American product—second only to that other elusive elixir, liberty. Both George Bush and John Kerry ended their speeches at their party conventions with hymns to their system of government.

Yet when it comes to their own elections, many Americans have their doubts. You may recall that small upset in Florida, of course; even if you accept that Mr Bush won the Electoral College fairly, which by most measures he did, there is the awkward point that Al Gore won more votes. And other awkwardnesses remain. Why does barely half of the eligible electorate bother to vote? Why are so many people banned from voting? Why is this election so awash with corporate money and dominated by negative campaigning-typified by the Kerry-bashing Switt Boat veterans and the Bush-bashing Texans for Truth? Why are so many congressional districts such a very pe­culiar shape? Already there is the uncomfortable sight of law­yers massing in every swing state to dispute another election whose result may turn on faulty technology.

The machinery of America’s democracy is creaking. That is not in most cases because there is anything fundamentally wrong with America’s electoral system; rather it has to do with human error, laziness and, in the case of those gerry­mandered districts, bipartisan corruption. Most of the solu­tions lie within the system. You can have the world’s most vig­orous democracy, but you still have to run it properly.

The fundamental things apply

Begin with a frank admission: there is no perfect voting sys­tem. Many of the supposed faults in the American system are not abuses, but the products of conscientious choice. Take the Electoral College, with its tilt towards smaller states. If Mr Bush were to win the White House while losing the popular vote again, many Americans might consider scrapping the college; or more states might look at changing the winner-takes-all rule. Colorado is considering splitting its electoral-college votes in proportion to the votes cast (an idea which, if it spread, would make it worth Mr Bush’s while to visit Califor­nia and Mr Kerry’s to visit Texas). If states decide to try this, fine. But they will not be mending American democracy; they will be choosing one voting system over another, as America has done throughout its history.

Or consider the most commonly voiced complaint of outsiders about American politics—that it is too full of money. In Europe, the state helps pay for campaigning and forces television networks to give time to parties; America prefers to keep elections, mostly, in the private sector. That increases the power of lobbyists (probably) and the noise from people’s television sets (certainly); but it is also a more liberal system, and closer to the principle of free speech.

The real question is whether that system is being run particularly well. From a liberal standpoint, the American system ought surely to allow people to give as much money as they want, as long as the information is disclosed. Even after recent campaign-finance reform, the law puts too much onus on controlling how much money people can give to individual politicians, rather than revealing who gives what. Hence the absurdity of money being funnelled into quasi-partisan groups like the Swift Boat Veterans.

The tumult about the ads and the money will probably get louder; but the real problem with the mechanics of American elections lies in the areas where there is less noise. For instance, one reason why so few people vote in America is because many states make registration so complicated. Many states also ban convicted felons from voting for life-a contradiction of the sound principle that once a man has served his punishment, he can rejoin society. Even apparent enhancements of democracy, such as absentee voting, can end up harming it, if they are applied carelessly; the parties can use strong-arm tactics with absentee voters that would not be permitted near the ballot box itself (see page 56).

Machine politics

Out of all these creaking bits of machinery, two look particularly deadly. The first is those voting machines (see page 57). Despite being given a fistful of money by Congress, many American states have opted for dodgy electronic voting machines. Electronic machines generally look a good idea; but they must have a paper back-up, so that voters can check that their votes have been recorded correctly; and, crucially, so that officials can hand-count the ballots if there is a very close result or if a glitch emerges, as it will. In one recent Indiana con­test, 5,352 voters somehow produced 144,000 votes.

The other great blot on American democracy—re districting—has already made a nonsense of elections to Congress. Despite all the hoopla about the 50:50 nation, no more than around 30 seats of the 435 in the House of Representatives are competitive (see page 53). In 2002, four out of five congress­men won their races by more than 20 points. This is because most states allow their politicians to determine the bound­aries. The result is gerrymandering on a grotesque scale, with incumbents stitching up safe seats by drawing absurd districts that look like doughnuts, sandwiches and Rorschach tests.

This is not just unfair; it puts people off voting (why bother in those 400 districts where the result is a forgone conclusion?) and it drives politics to the extremes. With no chance of being unseated by the other party, a congressman’s only threat is the partisans in the primary; so Republicans become ever more conservative and Democrats ever more left-wing.

As with so many of the other abuses in American politics, it need not be that way. Just as some states have bought good voting machines, others have redrawn their electoral boundaries in a sensible way. Iowa, for instance, allows an independent commission to set them. Redistricting can be fixed-and it should be. America’s devotion to the principle of democracy is admirable-but the principle could be far better honoured in the practice.