U.S. Election Results in Foreign Policy Concerns
By George Friedman
A statistical improbability has placed the United States on the
edge of a constitutional crisis at worst and a leadership crisis at
best.
The real danger the American election poses is that it calls into
question the legitimacy of the presidency. Since the president is
the chief agent of U.S. foreign policy, this could destabilize the
international system. The consequences are not trivial.
Let us review how we got into this mess. As they have every four
years for two centuries, the American people went to the polls on
the first Tuesday in November to elect a president. Turnout was
unexceptional. The campaign was neither the most rancorous nor the
most enlightening. It took place in a time of relative peace and
prosperity. Truth is, the candidates of the two major parties
agreed on more things than they disagreed, leaving genuine
divergence to the candidates of minor parties. As elections go, it
just wasn't that important.
Despite this, or perhaps because of it, or maybe by pure accident,
the election turned out extraordinarily close to the point of
statistical improbability. The popular vote almost evenly divided.
Vice-President Al Gore appeared to lead by 200,000 votes out of
about 100 million. We say appeared to because no one knows what
the total would be in a national recount. Making a mistake of two-
tenths of one percent is easy when you count 100 million ballots in
a few hours. Nevertheless, it seems Gore won the popular vote.
However, the popular vote does not elect the U.S. president.
America's founders created a peculiar institution called the
Electoral College. Voters do not vote directly for president but
for electors real people nominated by parties. Whoever wins the
popular vote within a state, with a few state exceptions, has his
electors selected. They go through a process in December, cast
their votes, which are then reported to the Senate in January,
electing the president.
The founders created the Electoral College primarily for two
reasons. First, they distrusted the ordinary citizen to elect a
president directly. Which is why they created this temporary
council of elders who select the next president. Second, the
founders understood the United States is a diverse land with varied
interests and not a homogeneous entity. Certain groups are not
very large but remain utterly essential to the nation. Consider
farmers. They are vital out of proportion to their small numbers.
If the political system responded only to size, it might completely
ignore their interests. The Electoral College design forces
national candidates to pay attention to farmers' interests because
the farmers control at least some electoral votes.
__________________________________________________________________
Would you like to subscribe to our new services for just $49.95
each year?
stratfor.com
_____________________________________________________________
The system of state-based Electoral College forgetting the human
electors for the moment also forces national candidates to break
down their message to the state level and create a national
political base from the parts. This has two effects. It forces
national attention on matters of local importance in all parts of
the country and selects presidents skilled at coalition building.
So, the system has its uses. One of which was visible this week.
If the popular vote counted, the country would now be going through
a national recount, in which both sides would search for evidence
of wrong doing everywhere. The events in West Palm Beach would
repeat in every city, town and subdivision in the country. If you
think the current situation is weird, imagine the United States
undergoing a national orgy of recrimination. The electoral system
has built in damage control, which the country badly needs right
now.
The statistical improbabilities in this election are amazing. Not
only did the popular vote virtually tie, the electoral vote count
through pure, unintended accident also equally divided. The entire
election rested on the outcome of the vote in a single state,
Florida, where the vote was amazingly close. But amazingly close
is not the same thing as tied. On election night, Texas Governor
George W. Bush won by less than 2,000 votes, percentage-wise on the
order of the lead that Gore had in the national popular vote. But
a win by a single vote constitutes a victory and determines the
recipient of a state's electoral votes. Bush had more than a
single vote majority. He had won the election in Florida, and was
therefore president-elect. Florida's election law ruled a recount
was in order. The recount seems to show that Bush won, albeit by
hundreds of votes rather than thousands. No matter. A win by a
vote is a win.
This is where it gets complicated. In the wake of the election,
some residents of West Palm Beach claimed the particular ballot
used in that county confused them, causing them to vote for Pat
Buchanan rather than Al Gore. Others ruined the ballot by punching
two holes, attributed to more confusion over the ballot. Both
sides continued to raise other issues throughout the state.
Normally, this wouldn't matter. A single state never decides the
election. Then again, a few hundred votes do not decide most
elections. Confusion over a few hundred or even several thousand
ballots is a common occurrence. No matter how common, it never
affects the outcome of the presidential race. But in this case, it
matters greatly. If true, it means that without the ballot
confusion, Gore would have won Florida and therefore the
presidency.
As untenable as the current situation is, the alternatives are even
more difficult to contemplate. A special election in West Palm
Beach to select the next president is too wacky to imagine.
Picture a weeklong campaign where millions of dollars and all
candidates' time are in one town dominated by a single ethnic group
the outcome of which would decide the presidency of the United
States. A new general election in Florida is possible and somewhat
less insane, but it would violate the intent of the Electoral
College by turning a single state into the beneficiary of every
promise a candidate could think of making. Both would probably
offer to move the White House to Disney World.
________________________________________________________
Promote global intelligence. Forward this newsletter to your
friends and colleagues.
________________________________________________________
America is not in crisis because of the close election. It is in
crisis because there appears to be no way to know which way the
vote actually went in one American town. If Bush wins, there will
be those who say it was against the intent of the voters. If Gore
wins, it will be said he won because of extraordinary dispensations
in vote counting that did not take place anywhere else. The
election now turns on such trivial, contingent questions such as
did 100 pencils punch completely through a card that no matter who
wins, the legitimacy of his presidency is open to doubt.
This could lead to a constitutional crisis if the legitimacy of the
West Palm Beach vote is rescinded and something is done about it.
The United States can avoid the constitutional crisis and still
wind up in a leadership crisis whether anything is done at all. If
nothing is done, Bush will win and be barely legitimate for four
years. If something is done, and Bush wins, the country can dodge
the bullet. If something is done and Gore wins, America winds up
with a president who got there through special dispensation.
Arithmetic oddity has placed us in a leadership crisis, on the edge
of constitutional crisis and heading towards a crippled presidency.
The courts cannot solve the problem. In a way, nothing can solve
the problem. Not even an act of statesmanship by either candidate
could resolve the issue of who should be sworn-in. Nor would
statesmanship by the loser enhance the leadership of the winner.
Assume George W. Bush suddenly withdrew. That would not make Al
Gore president. Bush is not in a position to hand the election
over and neither is Gore.
A withdrawal by either does not obligate their electors in any way.
In fact, it could free them for unprecedented zaniness. The issue
is not in the hands of either candidate. While the courts can
declare a winner, they cannot anoint a leader. The fact is no one,
least of all the candidates, is in position to make a binding
decision. A single voter has the power to bring suit. All the
campaign consultants in the world cannot control the outcome.
Perhaps the withdrawal of both candidates might help, but there is
no provision for new elections even if every citizen agreed to hold
one.
Whether any president will have the legitimacy needed to govern
authoritatively is unclear, unless the extraordinary happens and
the Senate and House band together to guarantee his authority.
Alas, since both institutions now divide right down the middle, and
neither house has leadership worthy of the name, the United States
is in a strange predicament indeed.
Oddly, this will matter more to the rest of the world than to the
United States. The president has deeply limited domestic power.
He can lead, but no one need follow for the nation - as opposed to
the federal government - to function. The place where the
president has tremendous authority is foreign policy. The crisis,
unless resolved authoritatively, will most affect the ability of
the next president to conduct foreign policy. Therefore, deeply
affecting the rest of the world, rather than the United States. At
a time when other great powers are rising to challenge the United
States, one can be certain this strange outcome will come under
careful study in foreign capitals.
We believe deeply that embedded in history is a logic that unfolds
over time. This situation makes it hard to argue that point.
Accident, not necessity, seems to govern. No wonder world
headlines reflect confusion. The Republic will survive this
anomaly, but not without discomfort. The impact on U.S. foreign
policy during the next four years remains unclear. That ought to
concern the world.
_______________________________________________
SUBSCRIBE to our new service. Just go to
stratfor.com
_______________________________________________
(c) 2000 Stratfor, Inc. |
