The stakes were not as high of course, but fifteen years ago an Australian state faced an election result that bears some comparison to America's current predicament over the battle for the presidency between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
In the 1985 Victorian state elections, Premier John Cain and his Labor government were returned to office for a second term. But Labor's ability to implement its legislative program without hindrance depended on wresting control of Victoria's upper house, the Legislative Council, from the conservative parties.
It soon became clear that this would hinge on a single seat, Nunawading, in Melbourne's outer eastern suburbs. Everyone knew it was going to be close, but no-one anticipated the actual result. With well over one hundred thousand votes cast, after preferences from the minor parties were distributed the Labor and Liberal candidates ended up in a dead heat.
So the returning officer followed the only path open to him. He drew a name out of a hat, and declared the Labor candidate the winner. Labor was elated, and Premier Cain told the media that the party had won the seat "fair and square".
Not surprisingly, the Liberals and many commentators thought that this outcome was far too arbitrary. The matter went to the Court of Disputed Returns, which ordered a new election for Nunawading. Labor lost, ending the government's dream of governing without obstruction from the conservatives.
But despite the uproar over the initial result, and the ALP's apparent involvement in distributing bogus how-to-vote cards at the subsequent by-election, there was no question about the independence of both the returning officer, a public servant, and the Victorian Supreme Court judge who sat as the Court of Disputed Returns.
That is a fundamental difference between the circumstances in Victoria in 1985 and in America today. Victoria -- and Australia generally -- has a universally accepted hierarchy of procedures to be followed in the event of a contested election result, and mechanisms designed to ensure the neutrality of those responsible for carrying them out.
As contemporary Queenslanders know only too well, these do not always prevent electoral fraud, although they almost certainly reduce its incidence. And when fraud does occur, it is invariably only the contesting political parties who are tainted. The integrity of electoral officials and the system itself remains virtually unscathed.
But well before people went to the recent polls in the United States, commentators were expressing concern about the potential for skulduggery. George W. Bush raised a big laugh at the end of his third pre-election debate when, after thanking his own supporters, he jokingly urged people backing Al Gore to "please vote only once".
Writing in The Wall St Journal, columnist John Fund noted that this was more than a joke. Fund cautioned that with all the opinion surveys pointing to a close election, various kinds of vote fraud could be expected. He quoted one distinguished political scientist's warning that "the temptation to steal votes in key swing states will be enormous", and another's assessment that the United States has "the modern world's sloppiest election systems".
While those who are unfavourably disposed towards America are having a fine time gloating over the presidential imbroglio, many of the present problems stem from aspects of the US political system that are otherwise admired by individuals with liberal or progressive inclinations.
Americans take the notion of the "people's will" very seriously, allowing more extensive popular input into decision making and civil appointments than in most other countries. Many key public officials are either directly elected by voters or are openly acknowledged as political choices.
The judges of Florida's Supreme Court, for example, are chosen by the Governor from a list of names submitted by a judicial commission, and then have to be approved by the electorate. Six of the seven judges who this week ruled that manual recounts in three crucial counties have to be included in Florida's final results are registered Democrats. However much these judges may declare that they adjudicate "without fear or favour", unless their decision favours those who are in effect their political adversaries, it is difficult for them to avoid the taint of partisanship.
Americans also believe in "acting locally", giving state, county and municipal authorities considerable autonomy. For Australians, one of the most remarkable current manifestations of this autonomy is the lack of uniform national, or even state, standards for ballot design, voting procedures and methods of determining valid votes. Britain's Independent newspaper reported that for the United States as a whole, 28 different ballot formats were in operation for the presidential race.
This ardent devotion to local democracy has helped to make the United States a great nation, and one in which patriotism is not as unfashionable as it has become in many other Western countries. Yet it also makes for a ramshackle electoral system without a consistent set of principles that could bring moral finality to the current presidential mess.
With the possible exception of the United States Supreme Court, there seems to be no ultimate arbiter whose decision would be treated as beyond challenge by any party. But although America's Constitution would permit Supreme Court intervention under certain circumstances, it is not clear that the court would wish to become entangled in what is essentially a matter of Florida's election laws.
That America's next President will have gained office through a line-ball election is not such a problem. His real difficulty will be dealing with a large and angry bloc of partisans who will be convinced that he stole the election from their man.
George W. Bush's personal qualities suggest that he would be the more effective healer for the nation as a whole in these circumstances. Unfortunately, most of America's intellectuals, entertainers and media would much rather have Al Gore, and will do all they can to undermine the legitimacy of a President Bush.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment