American dilemma

American dilemma

It is, perhaps, the greatest irony of the 21st century. In an ICE age characterised by computers it is a case of man's victory over machine. Imagine, the fate of the most powerful institution in the world -- the American presidency -- rests on the fact whether pregnant and dimpled chads -- the little perforated squares of paper that are supposed to fall off when the ballot is punched -- will be manually counted or not. The computers had rejected them. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But nevertheless it is true. And how do Americans resolve it? No, not by going to an independent election commission like in our system, but by proving that theirs is a system of `judicial sovereignty'. Thanks to judicial intervention by the highest court, it now seems that the chads will be counted. And they will hopefully resolve the greatest deadlock in the American presidential elections created by an uncertain verdict.

In a unanimous judgement, the Florida Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling that had earlier kept manually recounted ballots from three counties out of the final overall tally on the ground that they were not submitted by the statutory deadline of November 14. In other words, the highest court ruled that recounts from key Democratic counties must be included in the state's tally. The apex court which accepted the Democratic argument that the ``rights of voters outweigh requirements for strict compliance of the law'' also gave wide latitude to the local electoral authorities in accepting ballots -- containing pregnant chads -- otherwise rejected by voting machines. This latest twist is surely a shot in the arm for Vice President Al Gore, who although ahead in popular votes has been trailing Republican candidate Governor Bush by a mere 930 votes in Florida. No doubt, the Republicans have furiously condemned the decision as "unfair and unacceptable." One only hopes that at the last moment they do notcome up with another trick up their sleeves, thereby, proving that the American system is indeed a `lawyers' paradise.'

Whoever wins is immaterial as long as the results reflect the will of the voter. What Election 2000, however, has highlighted is that the American political system -- devised in the 18th century -- fails to do precisely that. The Electoral College with its winner-take-all principle was perhaps designed to suit its times. Critics contend that it was purposely constructed with elitist principles in mind, with an in-built bias against popular sentiments. The paranoia against populism is referred to in the Federalist Papers authored by Madison, Hamilton, and other founding fathers, time and again, as the `tyranny of majority.' But this kind of indirect elections is irrelevant surely in the 21st century. It also ends up being unfair to third party or independent candidates. With hand-counting, the Americans will, hopefully, settle Election 2000 in the short term. But in the long term, they need to tackle the electoral anachronism.