The United States likes to think of itself as a beacon of democracy for the world and an exemplar for less-enlightened countries to copy. Anyone who has been following this year’s interminable presidential election campaign may well think otherwise. Indeed, far from being a model of good democratic practice, the campaign has been little short of a national embarrassment.
The contrast between theory and reality could not be starker. In theory, every four years, US citizens get the opportunity to elect their president, choosing between highly respected candidates who have been carefully selected by their parties on the strength of their personal qualities and fitness for office. On the campaign trail, the candidates debate each other, explain their policies, and set out their vision for a better America. Once the voting has taken place and the winner is elected, everyone then comes together to give their loyal support to the president, whose inspiring victory speech rallies and unites the whole nation in a fervor of patriotism.
The reality this year has been somewhat different. If Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are deemed to be the best two people in the US to take on the role of president, there’s clearly something wrong with the system. Trump, now 78, is well past the normal retirement age, with serious questions being asked about his mental acuity. Even worse, serious questions are also being asked about his character. He is currently convicted of 34 felony charges with others still pending. The idea of an American president having to contend with a criminal record while simultaneously running the White House has been a bizarre new factor for voters to consider. Meanwhile, his opponent, Kamala Harris, is only there because the original Democratic candidate, President Joe Biden, felt obliged to pull out of the race because of concerns about his age and mental health. Having avoided the primary election campaign, Harris is seen as more of an unknown quantity, someone who merely echoed Biden’s policies during her loyal but undistinguished four years as his vice-president.
Those who believe that American democracy is a magic bullet need to reflect on the reality of both the system and the campaigns before asking themselves whether the American model is something to be emulated or avoided
It’s not surprising that opinion polls have consistently shown lower than average approval ratings for both candidates. Concerns about their initial selection have not been allayed by the campaign itself. This has been characterized by confrontational, extreme and divisive language. Trump has been labeled by Harris as a “fascist”, a “petty tyrant”, a “wannabe dictator”, and a danger to democracy. For his part, Trump has dubbed Harris a “low-IQ person”, a “lunatic”, a “radical-left Marxist”, weak and a threat to American security. Such name-calling has been accompanied by extravagant claims and promises. Trump boasts that he will round up and deport millions of undocumented immigrants, end the war in Ukraine, punish his opponents and, of course, “Make America Great Again”. His crude vilification of immigrants and political rivals has been a polarizing influence on the campaign. In response, Harris has ridiculed Trump and reminded people of his support for the insurrectionists who stormed Congress after the last election, portraying him as a threat to the US Constitution.
This unedifying spectacle is not a good advertisement for US democracy. Moreover, it gets worse. Setting aside the quality of the candidates and the vitriol of the campaign, the greatest indictment of all is the voting system. The method of electing the president is on a “first past the post” basis in each federal state. The overall tally of votes for the whole country is completely irrelevant. Historically, this has led to some very undemocratic results. In 2016, for example, Trump was elected president with just 46.1 percent of the popular vote, despite his opponent, Hillary Clinton, receiving 48.2 percent.
As well as being undemocratic, this antiquated system also effectively disenfranchises Democratic voters in strong Republican states and vice versa. For example, if you’re a Republican living in California or New York, or a Democrat living in Wyoming or Oklahoma, there’s absolutely no point in you going to the polling station. The outcome of the election is already known. In fact, there are only seven of the 50 states where voting can truly go either way this year. These “swing states” are Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona. Unsurprisingly, these states are where the candidates have focused their campaigns. So the whole election is down to what happens in just seven states, with a total combined population of 61.75 million, out of a US population of 345.42 million (i.e., under 18 percent of the whole population). Such a distorted system would be condemned out of hand if it were elsewhere in the world, but because this is America, it’s just accepted as perfectly normal.
So for those of us observing the US election from afar, what conclusions can we draw? First, we should be reminded that American democracy is not a panacea for all our problems. Indeed, it is strangely flawed. It is neither truly democratic nor a model that inspires confidence. It has a polarizing influence on the nation, with extreme language creating bitter divisions, animosity and cynicism. Those who believe that American democracy is a magic bullet need to reflect on the reality of both the system and the campaigns before asking themselves whether the American model is something to be emulated or avoided.
More importantly, in the US itself, the undemocratic voting system and the confrontational, abrasive and divisive campaign are likely to intensify not just disharmony in society but also skepticism about democracy. While the election may not prove to be a great advertisement for American politics, the bigger question is whether it could precipitate a real crisis for American democracy and how destabilizing this could be for the rest of the world.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
