Category: International

United States Electoral College – CHAPTER 1. ORIGINS & HISTORY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

In the second part of Dan Heaton’s thesis discussing the United States Electoral College, he looks at the Origins & History of the Electoral College.

CHAPTER 1. ORIGINS & HISTORY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

The Presidential Electoral College system is not laid down in any federal statute but is enshrined within the Constitution of the United States of America of 1787.  Article II of the Constitution as modified by the 12th Amendment has been in existence as long as the United States itself, and thus in order to examine the origins of the Electoral College it is essential to study how the Constitution of 1787 came into being in the form that it did.

The Road to Philadelphia.

July 4th 1776 saw the Continental Congress issue the Declaration of Independence.  The ensuing war evoked nationalist sentiments in American political thought, however, during this period many of the colonies enacted their own constitutions and in effect became states in their own right, with their own governments and thus their own interests to protect.  Thus when the great and the good discussed the enacting of the Articles of Confederation the opposing viewpoints of nationalism and localism met head on.  In the end the small states with their local interests won the battle as James Wilson a Congressman at the time stated later when addressing the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

“Among the first sentiments expressed in the first Congress, one was that Virginia is no more that Massachusetts is no more that Pennsylvania is no more and Connecticut.  We are now one nation of brethren.  We must bury all local interests and distinctions.  This language continued for some time.  The tables at length began to turn.  No sooner were the State Governments formed than their jealousy and ambition began to display themselves.  Each endevoured to cut a slice from the  common loaf; to add to its own morsel, till at length the Confederation became frittered down to the impotent condition in which it now stands.  Review the progress of the Articles of Confederation through Congress and compare the first and last draught of it.” (1)

Once the watered down Articles of Confederation had been approved by Congress in 1777 the states had all the rights. The larger states who had previously wanted a strong national Government  became more localist in outlook.  They had no interest in moving power to the centre as the new Congress was based upon the equal rights of states and could thus be controlled by the smaller less populous states therefore any national power would be of no use to the larger states.

Essentially, in terms of internal affairs, the states acted totally in their own interests and against any notion of the common good, threatening the very existence of the fledgling union itself, Leonard W Levy sums up the situation thus:

“Congress, representing the United States, authorized the creation of the states and ended up, as it had begun, as their creature.  It possessed expressly delegated powers with no means of enforcing them.  That Congress lacked commerce and tax powers was a serious deficiency, but not nearly as crippling as its lack of sanctions and the failure of the states to abide by the Articles.  Congress simply could not make anyone, except soldiers, do anything.  It acted on the states, not on people.  Only a national government that could execute its laws independently of the states could have survived.  The states flouted their constitutional obligations.  The Articles obliged the states to “abide by the determinations of the United States, in Congress assembled,” but there was no way to force the states to comply.” (2)

The problems encountered by the Confederation led in September 1786 to a convention in Annapolis, Maryland at which representatives from Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York agreed that a Constitutional Convention made up of delegates from all the states should meet in Philadelphia in May 1787: “…to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union, and to report such an act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled….” (3)

Thus delegates from the former colonies met in Philadelphia on may 25th 1787 in order to revise the Articles of Confederation and fashion the Constitution of The United States.  Against this backdrop the delegates set about the creation of an independent and permanent executive, the position of President of the United States and a system for appointment to what is now the most powerful political position in the world.

“it was suggested that the states should decide who should be President.  However, following the blatant flouting of the Articles of Confederation and the overtly localist tendencies of some of the states, it was feared that this system would allow the President to become the lackey of the states”

The Convention.

In Philadelphia the founding fathers met to revise the constitution, they agreed that there should be a president, but they were undecided as to how this most illustrious position should be filled?  The Presidency could not be hereditary as this went totally against the republican form of government envisaged and the anti-monarchist post War of Independence feeling.

There were three main proposals for the appointment procedure.  Firstly, it was mooted that Congress should elect the President whether from amongst its own numbers or from elsewhere. This proposal was attacked as it might lead to corruption with the President being beholden to the Congressmen.  It was also felt that such a system would cause division in Congress over the selection and that this would be bad for the Union and that such infighting may lead to corruption or political payoffs in order to obtain votes.  Just as important at this time though was that such a system allowing Congress to appoint the executive would be an affront to the doctrine of the separation of powers and would have disturbed the balance between the executive and legislative branches of the Government.  Thus this suggestion was rejected by the convention.

Secondly, it was suggested that the states should decide who should be President.  However, following the blatant flouting of the Articles of Confederation and the overtly localist tendencies of some of the states, it was feared that this system would allow the President to become the lackey of the states and that this would dilute the newly created federation leaving it as impotent as the previous confederation.

The third of the main proposals was that the President should be directly elected by the people of the Union, or at least all those men entitled to vote.  However, at the time due to the sheer size of the country and the state of technology during that period it would have been difficult to launch a national campaign accessible to all the people.  It was also feared that to do so would favour the most populous states and thus little time would be given by the President to the needs of the people in the smaller less populous states.  Given the environment of localism at the time it was also feared that each state would simply vote for their own man the so called “favourite son”, and thus the new head of state would in fact have very little national support at a time when the delegates were looking to create a feeling of a nation rather than fostering allegiance to individual states which could lead to the break up of the Union.

There thus came the great compromise known today as the Electoral College.  The College was a compromise between state power and federal authority, between small and large states and according to Victor Williams and Alison M MacDonald (4) a compromise between the northern states and the southern slave owning states. 

The Original Design of the Electoral College.

The system laid down Article II of the document which became the Constitution of the United States of America is as follows:

“…Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.  And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the President of the Senate.  The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the votes shall then be counted.  The person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed: and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives  shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President: and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.  But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the Senates shall be necessary to a Choice.  In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice-President.  But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.”

There are thus three parts to the process; the selection of electors, the process by which electors vote and the contingency election used in situations where no candidate achieves a majority.

Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to their representation in Congress, Thus, no matter what their population, they are guaranteed at least three electoral votes, two for the two Senators that each state is entitled to under Article I Section 3 of the Constitution and at least one for the one member of the House of Representatives which each state has guaranteed under Article I Section 2.  Thus small states gained a proportionally greater representation in the election of the President.  Victor Williams and Alison M MacDonald have gone further and assert that the smaller states at this time tended to be the southern slave owning states and that despite their low voting populations for the House of Representatives they benefitted  from Article I Section 2 which details how a states representation in congress is to be assessed.  Article I Section 2 states that in this calculation “three fifths of all other persons” are to be counted.  Thus slaves who had no right to vote could be counted as three fifths of a person thus giving the southern slave owning states a larger proportion of Congressmen than states which only counted free men.  With a larger representation in Congress went a larger representation in the Electoral College.

The actual process for choosing electors was left open to the individual state legislatures to decide upon.  This was again a compromise between state and federal power.  The only prohibition placed on electors was that they could not be Members of Congress or employees of the United States.  This was to ensure that the choice of President as the executive branch of government was kept separate from the legislature, and was enacted so as to embody the doctrine of the separation of powers.

Once selected the electors would meet in their own states in order to make corruption more difficult due to the vast geography of the country.  The electors would then cast two votes for people they thought fit to be President.  In order that the “favourite son” scenario could be avoided, it was enshrined that at least one of the votes cast had to be for someone from another state.

When the voting was completed the votes were sent to Congress were the President of the Senate (a position actually held by the incumbent Vice-President) would declare the results.  If one person had a majority of the votes then that person is declared President and the runner up became Vice-President.  However, if there was a tie, or if no candidate obtained a majority of the electoral votes then the House of Representatives was to select the President from those with the top five number of votes.  This was to be done by the state representation voting as a state not as individual representatives, thus even in the contingency election the smaller states benefit as they become equal to the more populous states each receiving one vote each.  Once a President is selected the candidate with the highest number of Electoral College votes would be declared Vice-President, however, should there be a tie then the Senate would vote for the Vice-President.

Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist said of the system: “…[T]hat if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.  It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages the Union of which was to be wished for.” (5)

Hamilton particularly praised the use of the office of Elector:

“No Senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the number of the electors.  Thus, without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon their task, free from any sinister bias.  Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already noticed, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.  The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time, as well as means, nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them dispersed, as they would be over thirteen states,….” (6)

Hamilton also believed that the system would find superior and unifying Presidents rather than merely the favourite son of a populous state:

“This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of president will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.  Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honours, of a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it, as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.” (7)

It was with these persuasive writings from Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay writing under the pseudonym Pubilus in articles collectively known as the Federalist that the argument was waged over ratification of the document drafted at the Philadelphia Convention.  The federalists won the day and the Constitution of the United States of America, including the presidential electoral system that has become known as the Electoral College was ratified by the required nine states by June 1788.

“The practice of electors casting two votes for presidential candidates became seen as redundant because the rise of political parties had created what we now know as Presidential and Vice Presidential running mates”

The Early Years of the Constitution.

The early years of the new union saw the rise of political parties.  This meant that electors of a given persuasion were likely to give their two electoral votes to like minded individuals thus the likelihood of a tie increased dramatically.  This in fact occurred in the 1800 election when electors for the Democratic-Republican party [not the current Republican Party] awarded their votes equally to Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson.  The decision on who should be President was thus placed in the hands of the House of Representatives, who eventually decided in favour of Thomas Jefferson.

The practice of electors casting two votes for presidential candidates became seen as redundant because the rise of political parties had created what we now know as Presidential and Vice Presidential running mates.  The political parties had also started to breakdown the boundaries between state orientated candidates a nd were creating a greater national forum.  The election of 1800 was a watershed for the Electoral College.  It was its fourth Presidential election and it was to be its last in its present form.  The fact that parties had become so prominent in United States politics and that there had been all kinds of political dealings in the House of Representatives in order to get Jefferson elected, including some thirty-six ballots, created the environment from which the 12th Amendment was proposed and ratified.

The 12th Amendment ratified in 1804 stated:

“”The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves, they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each,….  The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.  But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice….The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice….”

The 12th Amendment implicitly recognises the prominence of political parties through its requirement that electors vote for separate candidates specifically for the posts of President and Vice President as this facilitates “running mates” to exist and avoids the confusion amongst electors which resulted in the tied election of 1800. 

The Amendment also affected the Contingent Election process for the two posts.  The procedure by which the House of Representatives selects the President was altered, so that should no candidate receive a majority of the electoral vote the  House would now select the President only from those with the three largest number of electoral votes rather than the top five candidates.  The Senate was also given the power to select the Vice-President, in cases were no majority of electoral votes exist for that post.  They could now select from the top two ranked candidates based on the electoral vote for that position.

Thus, whilst the College system had been altered significantly in the case of voting for separate Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, the essential formula of votes being split amongst the various states in a somewhat disproportionate manner remained the same.  Despite the mood of change the powers that be decided not to overhaul the system and introduce direct election, even though the party system had eroded some of the state allegiances.  Tadahisa Kuroda asserts that Thomas Jefferson had previously been an advocate of abolishing the electors and replacing the system with direct election but that he now “chose the option that most advantaged his party, hurt his rivals and simplified the choices to be given to state legislatures.” (8)

“In an attempt to guarantee a Whig Party President, the Whigs nominated three different candidates for separate parts of the country.  The Party hoped to use the local candidate’s popularity to obtain an Electoral College majority for the Party and then and only then decide which candidate should be President”

Turbulent Elections.

The elections of 1800 and 2000 are not the only controversial Presidential elections to occur in the history of the electoral college.  There have been numerous occasions when the result of an election has been disputed or unusual because of the nuances of the electoral system.

1824.

In 1824 the dominant Democratic-Republican Party had four candidates  in; William Crawford, Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.  Andrew Jackson won the electoral vote but was unable to win a majority.  The decision was thus passed to the House of Representatives, who under the rules laid down in the 12th Amendment selected John Quincy Adams as President of the United States.  This decision was completely within the constitutional remit of the House but not surprisingly caused uproar with Andrew Jackson and his supporters who claimed that the House of Representatives had thwarted the popular will as he had obtained the largest share of the popular vote as well as coming top of the electoral college vote.  However, at the time of this election, of the twenty-four states of the Union six did not use popular ballots to appoint electors, with the choice of electors being left to the state legislature.  Such states including the populous New York along with South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Louisiana and Delaware.  New York had 36 electoral votes and South Carolina had 11 but neither of these states sought to know the will of their inhabitants.  Thus, the popular will of the people could not be assessed at the time.  The election by the contingent process was not unconstitutional but merely highlighted the shortcomings of several states selection policies and was a stepping stone in the democratisation of that process nationally.

1836.

In an attempt to guarantee a Whig Party President, the Whigs nominated three different candidates for separate parts of the country.  The Party hoped to use the local candidate’s popularity to obtain an Electoral College majority for the Party and then and only then decide which candidate should be President.  However, the plan backfired and the Democratic-Republican Martin Van Buren obtain an Electoral College majority.

1876.

In 1876 the United States was still recovering from the civil war and was entering an economic depression.  The country and indeed the political parties were divided over the post-war settlements and tariff policy.  This division could not have been better emphasised than in the electoral results of Florida (not for the last time!}, South Carolina and Louisiana.  The states were so divided that they all sent two conflicting sets of electoral votes, one set in favour of the Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, the Mayor of New York and one set in favour of the Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, the Governor of Ohio.  In the circumstances Congress set-up an Electoral Commission to decide the outcome of the election in those states.  Not surprisingly the Republican Congress awarded the states to Rutherford B. Hayes and he became President.

Whilst most attention with regard to the 1876 election goes to the disputed  vote counts in the above states, it is interesting to note the role that Colorado had on the election.  The United States Electoral College Webzine makes an interesting point:

“There was also the situation in Colorado where Hayes won with 0 votes..  Colorado was admitted to the Union in August 1876.  The state legislature, to save money decided not hold a presidential election…. They simply appointed electors who voted for Hayes.  So what put Hayes over the top were 3 electors not by [sic] the public.  This was all perfectly constitutional, and did not figure in the controversy over disputed votes.

Was it a coincidence that Colorado was admitted to the Union right before the closest electoral vote in history?  Probably not.  Colorado was the only state admitted to the Union between 1867 and 1889.  The Republican Congress was unwilling to give up the patronage jobs in the territories.  So admitting a state to the Union was quite an extraordinary event.  Perhaps the expectation of three additional Republican electors was a motivating factor.” (9)

1888.

In 1888 the incumbent President Grover Cleveland of the Democratic Party lost under the Electoral College to Republican Party candidate Benjamin Harrison despite winning the popular vote.  By now all states were using popular election to decide upon their electors so it really was a case of the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral vote.  According to the Electoral College Webzine (10) Grover Cleveland managed to lose the election by making tariff reform an issue.  This made him very popular in the south but lost him votes in the north, thus whilst he won large majorities of the popular vote in the south he lost narrowly in the northern states to Harrison.  The election of 1888 is a classic example of the Electoral College working in favour of a candidate with national support rather than one with large support but whose support is regional.  Thus, whilst the election result of 1888 has often been used in the past as an example of the flaws of the Electoral College by its opponents, it is also used by its supporters as a sign of the system working as the founding fathers envisaged.

The Electoral College Today.

Allocation of Electoral Vote.

The number of electors allocated to each state is equal to that states representation in Congress, thus it is equal to 2 Senators plus that states number of Representatives which must be at least 1 (Article I US Constitution) The number of electors allocated to each state varies with the changes in their apportionment of Representatives after every decennial census.  Whilst the original Constitution allocated each state at least 3 electors, the 23rd Amendment ratified in 1961 awarded 3 electors to the District of Columbia.  There are therefore now electors from all 50 states of the Union and the seat of the United States Government.  However, American dependencies such as the U. S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa do not receive any electoral votes and so do not play any part in the election of the President.

The Electors.

The vital link between the people and the winning candidate are technically the electors.  They are usually loyal local party supporters or activists chosen because they can be trusted to cast their vote for their declared favourite candidate.  The process of formal nomination of electors varies from state to state, but they are usually nominated either by the local branch of a political party, by party convention or they are selected by the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates themselves.  The only people prohibited from being electors are members of Congress and employees of the Federal Government. [Article II Section 1 US Constitution.]

Appointment of Electors.

Article II of the Constitution states that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors….”  The decision of how to select electors was therefore left to the state legislatures, therefore some legislatures appointed the electors themselves..  However, over the years the states moved towards popular statewide election by ballot.  Indeed, since 1836 only South Carolina maintained that policy and they moved to popular ballot following the civil war.  The date of appointment which now essentially means Presidential Election Day has now become uniform under federal law. The date for elections being the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in every Presidential Election year.  In some states the names actually appear on the ballot paper but in most cases the ballot papers simply read “Electors for…”

Allocation of Electoral Votes.

Article II Section 1 of the Constitution states that electors are appointed “…as Legislature thereof may direct…2 and the Supreme Court in the case of McPherson v Blacker (1892) [{1892} 146 US 1] deemed that this power extended to the allocation of electoral votes after any ballot.  Through time the system known as “The General Ticket” or “The Winner Takes All” system has developed whereby the candidate who finishes top of the statewide poll receives all of that states allocation of electors.  Thus, in Florida in 2000, after the final court ruling, the official result gave George W. Bush 2912790 votes compared to Al Gore’s 2912253, yet George W. Bush was awarded all of Florida’s Electoral College votes.  Therefore, with a difference in the Florida poll of just 0.01% George W. Bush was able to become President of the United States.  The winner takes all system is used in 48 of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia, however, the states of Maine and Nebraska use what is called the Congressional District method of allocating their electoral vote.  This system involves the allocating of the two electors representing the states Senatorial seats to the overall statewide winner, but then allocating the remainder of the electoral votes to the candidates who receive the most votes in the states Congressional Districts.  However, given that following the 2000 Census, in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, Maine will only have an allocation of 4 Electoral College votes and Nebraska will only have 5, the winner takes all system is by far the most dominant and is a much criticised facet of the modern Electoral College.

Meeting of Electors.

The electors now meet in their state capitals on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December to cat their votes for President and Vice-President.

Counting of the Electoral Votes.

The electoral votes are counted in front of a joint session of Congress on the January 6th following the election, by the President of the Senate who then declares the winners or announces a contingent election.

The system was a controversial compromise at the time of its inception.  In the next chapter I examine the arguments against the College and those in favour of its retention. (11)

The founding fathers had to design a system which reflected the federal nature of the new nation and that federal nature still exists today.  However, the application of the winner takes all system and the problems with voting machines and counting procedures bring  the system into disrepute.  Nonetheless the actual Electoral College is a compromise which for the most part has worked well.  In the words of Alexander Hamilton:

“[T]hat if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” (12)

Notes

  1. Farrand, Max editor.  Records 1 166-67,  The Framing of the Constitution, 1913, New Haven Conn.  In Levy, Leonard W.  Essays on the Making of the Constitution 2nd edition, 1987 Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  2. Levy, Leonard W.  Essays on the Making of the Constitution 2nd edition, 1987, Oxford University Press at pXVII.
  3. Beloff, Max. Editor.  The Federalist 2nd edition, 1987, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford at p463.
  4. [1] Williams V,  MacDonald A,  Rethinking Article II Section 1 & Its Twelfth amendment Restatement: Challenging Our Nations Malapportioned, Undemocratic Presidential Election System, Marquette Law Review, Winter 1994 Vol 77 n2 p201-264.
  5. Beloff, Max editor.  The Federalist 2nd Edition, 1987, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford at p348
  6. Ibid at p369
  7. Ibid at p350.
  8. Kuroda, Tadahisa.  The Origins of the Twelfth Amendment: The Electoral College in the Early Republic 1787-1804, Contributions in Political Science, Number 344, Westport Conn, Greenwood Publishing 1984 xii 235 as reviewed by Onuf, Peter S, of The University of Virginia Journal of Legal History April 1995 39 n2 p277-278.
  9. www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_1876.htm.
  10. www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_1888.htm.
  11. Farrand, Max editor.  Records 1 166-67,  The Framing of the Constitution, 1913, New Haven Conn.  In Levy, Leonard W.  Essays on the Making of the Constitution 2nd edition, 1987 Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  12. Federalist no 64.  See Beloff,  Max editor.  The Federalist 2nd edition. 1987, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.

United States Electoral College

United States Electoral College – INTRODUCTION

In 2001 Dan Heaton wrote a thesis discussing that “Following the recent debacle of the United States Presidential Election, has the time come to abolish the Electoral College in favour of a more representative system of electing the most powerful leader in the world, and can other nations be so complacent about their systems of electing their leaders?”

Over several parts, with the Presidential Inauguration upon us and following the challenges of the 2020 election, now is a great opportunity to review these arguments.

INTRODUCTION

The United States is now the only true world superpower and has long been considered a beacon of freedom and democracy for the whole world.  It has a much lauded constitution with the doctrine of the separation of powers, a separation of church and state and civil liberties enshrined within that most beguiled of documents.

However, the recent election which saw George W. Bush as President and Commander in Chief has raised long felt concerns among many as to the truly democratic nature of the electoral process used to choose the Head of State of this most powerful of nations.

As the evening news was broadcast across the nation, the television networks declared that Vice President Al Gore had won the election.  Then as the night went on and results started to come in from across the nation the networks were forced to retract their prediction and announced that George W. Bush was going to be victorious.

However, the election remained exceptionally close across the country and it soon became clear that Florida had become the key state, with the victor there almost certain to win the keys to the White House.

“before Gore had made his public address before his supporters, as is traditional when making a formal concession, he was informed by his aides that Florida looks a lot closer and so remarkably he phoned Governor Bush again and retracted his previous concession”

With the networks having called the election for Governor Bush in the belief that he had won Florida, Vice President Gore phoned George W. Bush and conceded defeat.  However, before Gore had made his public address before his supporters, as is traditional when making a formal concession, he was informed by his aides that Florida looks a lot closer and so remarkably he phoned Governor Bush again and retracted his previous concession.

There then followed over a month of political and legal battles over the validity of ballots.  From the design of the “butterfly ballot” with the names of candidates either side of punch holes to the great “chad” debate, which raged over whether a punch hole had been properly perforated.

Legal hearings took place in district, state federal and finally the United States Supreme Court over the validity of counts and whether re-counts and hand re-counts should take place.   There were “stop the count” and “let them count” demonstrations both in Florida, Washington and elsewhere.

Eventually Vice President Al Gore conceded defeat on September 13th 2000, thirty-six days after the election took place, and George W. Bush the Governor of Texas became President-elect of the Union.

Meanwhile, the world had watched the scenes with a sense of confusion, disbelief and self-satisfaction that nothing like that would happen here! 

The reason why Florida’s result was of such importance is because of the Electoral College system used to elect the President.  The term Electoral College is a phrase used every four years when Presidential elections occur but understood by few, even in America.  The full implications of its effect did not become clear and as controversial until the recent election.    The system involves the states nominating electors to decide who will be the President of the Union, each state being entitled to a number of electors equal to their representation in Congress.  The system used in almost every state, results in the winner of each state receiving all of that state’s Electoral College vote.  It is thus possible for the overall popular vote winner to lose by means of the Electoral College.  This democratic anomaly has occurred twice before and appears to have happened in the election of 2000.  Recent events have brought the procedure and American democracy into question, to such an extent that one English commentator has argued that:

“The U.S. Constitution is killing democracy….  The procedures for selecting a President set down more than 200 years ago to suit a set of small states, populated by yeoman puritans, hugging the eastern seaboard of a continent, remain virtually unaltered as the method by which the single military, economic, political and cultural superpower on the planet reaches decisions of fundamental importance.  This will not do, change must come and the totally surreal developments that have now been witnessed across the world this week should be the catalyst.” (1)

“The United States Presidential Electoral College is therefore of current legal, constitutional and political significance”

The United States Presidential Electoral College is therefore of current legal, constitutional and political significance.  Numerous arguments have been put forward in favour of abolition of the Electoral College and its reform, whilst defenders of the process have also been quick to come to its defence, and there have been several proposals for reform placed before the House of Representatives in the new session of Congress.

In this work I intend to assess the Electoral College and look at possible alternatives that are available in other Western countries.  I will use the following format:

Chapter 1 – I explore the origins of the Electoral College and its workings in the early years of the Union.  I also look at its use in elections throughout history and its workings today.

Chapter 2 – In this  Chapter I assess the disadvantages of the system as asserted by its opponents along with its advantages as purported by its supporters.

Chapter 3 – I use this chapter to examine and analyse the reform proposals currently before the 107th Congress.

Chapter 4 – In this chapter I explore the systems used for selecting the Heads of State of three Western European countries and compare them to the American system.

Conclusion – In this chapter I assess other reasons for concern over the American electoral  system and compare the Electoral College to the system used to elect the Government of the United Kingdom.  Finally I assess the need for and the likelihood of reform.

Notes

  1. Haines, Tim.  The Times November 9th 2000 p18

United States Electoral College

O Canada, The True North strong and free! – Interview with Brandon Kirby of the Libertarian Party of Canada

Formed in 1973 the Libertarian Party of Canada, subscribes to classical liberal tenets of the libertarian movement.  Policies the party advocates for include ending drug prohibition, ending government censorship, lowering taxes, protecting gun rights and non-interventionism.

The party has regularly run a large number of candidates in the federal elections of this, the second biggest country on earth and nation of almost 38 million people.  Our cousin nation are not entirely unfamiliar with our fair town as The Globe and Mail, Canada’s “newspaper of record” visited our Leavers of Croydon drinks in October last year.

We speak with Brandon Kirby the Libertarian Party Communications Director, about the politics of freedom in their home and native land.

Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about your party?

The mission of the Libertarian Party of Canada is to reduce the responsibilities and expense of government so that we may each manage our lives to mutually fulfil our needs by the free and voluntary exchange of our efforts and property for the value that best realizes our happiness.

“He was terribly in over his head to become prime minister. There was nothing on his resume that suggested he had the capacity to deliver on his promises. The cost of living has gone up significantly, taxes have gone up“

Canada’s Prime Minister is possibly best known here for dressing up and wearing make-up. What are your thoughts on the Justin Trudeau government?

I think that captures his strongest points.

He was terribly in over his head to become prime minister. There was nothing on his resume that suggested he had the capacity to deliver on his promises. The cost of living has gone up significantly, taxes have gone up, he’s engaging in arms trading with genocidal war criminals in Saudi Arabia, his government is giving tremendous subsidies to fossil fuel companies, he failed to balance the budget as promised, and he makes terrible blunders that novices wouldn’t make when answering basic questions about our tax code.

To the point you raised, the fact that he isn’t taken seriously by the international community, is problematic. He’s had difficulty in negotiating a free trade contract with Mexico and the U.S. His overseas trip to India was a national embarrassment that cost us $500 million, which gave him an excuse to play dress-up.

“We have a collection of elites within journalism, lawyers, professors, and politicians, that largely communicate with themselves, and they see particular issues as pressing that many Canadians don’t. Outside of this well-sealed off bubble, ordinary Canadians have differing views”

Canada has some strict speech laws. How do you think these are viewed by ordinary Canadians and what’s the view of your party?

Our party champions free speech. Canada is a divided country. We have a collection of elites within journalism, lawyers, professors, and politicians, that largely communicate with themselves, and they see particular issues as pressing that many Canadians don’t. Outside of this well-sealed off bubble, ordinary Canadians have differing views. Within the context of free speech, overarching demands from the government and various universities with respect to transgender rights and criticism of Islam, many Muslims and transgendered individuals are themselves puzzled by these seemingly counter-productive legislations to their goals; they’re interested in practicing freedom rather than their movements becoming tyrannical.

What are your main campaign tactics? How do you go out for votes?

Our previous campaign used traditional political tactics and was unsuccessful. Our next campaign will likely involve more social media interaction. Rather than broad-based national strategies, we’ll likely attempt a regional strategy focusing on three or four seats that we could win in parliament.

“by a wide margin, the number one issue in Canada right now is gun control. Our party experienced a spike in membership after the new wave of bans was announced over a month ago”

Following on what are the policies that get Canadians excited to vote for Liberty?

Tackling cost of living increases that have come about through central banking was popular with seniors. Free market environmentalism was popular in areas that have suffered environmental damage and with our student population. Opposition to state-funded media was popular within rural, more right wing communities. Tax reform was popular with business owners, as was fiscal prudence in balancing the budget. However, by a wide margin, the number one issue in Canada right now is gun control. Our party experienced a spike in membership after the new wave of bans was announced over a month ago.

The US presidential election is underway, and it’s likely the Libertarians will again finish 3rd. What do you make of the Libertarian politics of your southern cousins?

We’re impressed with the resume of Jo Jorgensen, and interested to see if she can get the Libertarian Party more votes.

Your party has fought in a number of elections, with mixed results. What do you think is next for your party, and what are your next goals?

Mixed results is a generous way of describing our past outcomes. We’re gearing up for the next campaign, learning from past failures, focusing on future successes.

If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?

We would enshrine private property and self-defence rights in the Canadian charter, and enact significant tax reform.

What do you think of your country’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to be done next?

Canada will be spending a minimum of an additional $250 billion to combat COVID-19. As a result we are creating a plethora of dollars, but no additional wealth – which has inflationary concerns. Given that our economy is dwindling and we’re facing real inflation concerns, the resultant stagflation will be difficult to overcome. Enacting sound money policies will be necessary to escape the looming economic nightmare, along with serious cuts to corporate taxes so that we can recover economically.

“Many Canadian libertarians supported Brexit, and so we were happy to see our parent country trending in a positive direction”

Do you have any thoughts on UK politics?

Many Canadian libertarians supported Brexit, and so we were happy to see our parent country trending in a positive direction. However, during the last leaders’ debate many of us were concerned with Johnson’s support for Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn’s pronouncement that the existence of billionaires is shameful has serious consequences for the international finance community if his line of thinking gains prominence, given the influence of the LSE and the robustness of the FTSE 100. Johnson is acting antithetical to our foreign policy goals while Corbyn could have disastrous consequences to our economy. Neither of the two major leaders appears to be positive from a Canadian perspective and we’re happy to see alternatives popping up within the U.K. Keep up the great work!

You can follow the Libertarian Party of Canada on the web, on Twitter and on Facebook.

Interview with Baudoin Collard of Parti Libertarien – the Libertarian Party of Belgium

Home of great beers, amazing Christmas markets, Crystal Palace striker Christian Benteke and sadly the EU, Belgium declared independence in 1830.  This followed the Belgian Revolution when the largely Catholic regions of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands split from what we now call Holland and Luxembourg.  The Treaty of London (1839) guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium.  The so called “scrap of paper” led to the UK entering the first world war when Belgium was invaded.  Indeed Belgian resistance largely thwarted the Schlieffen Plan which allowed time for the Allied Powers to mobilise.

Thankfully today the fight for freedom and liberty in Belgium is much more peaceful.  We speak with Baudoin Collard of the Parti Libertarien (the Libertarian Party of Belgium).

Baudoin thank-you for the interview and for undertaking this in English.

Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about the party?

The ‘Parti Libertarien’ (Libertarian Party in English) is a Belgian party founded in 2012. It is mainly active in the French-speaking part of the country (the Brussels and Walloon regions) as well as in the German-speaking part.

The Parti Libertarien participated in several elections in Belgium, albeit with limited success: in 2014 (federal and regional elections), in 2018 (provincial and communal elections) and 2019 (Federal and regional elections).

In 2015, the PLib (Parti Libertarien) was one of the 12 founding members of the IALP (International Alliance of Libertarian Parties – http://ialp.com/)

Our party is also active on internet:

“For example, we campaigned in the media for the legalization of cannabis, for the abolition of the national biometric ID card, the suppression of government agencies such as the AFSCA (responsible for bureaucratic food-chain regulations)”

What are the main issues in Belgium you campaign on, what gets Libertarians excited?

We stand for a strictly limited government and support laissez-faire capitalism. Our main engagements are the following:

  • restore Belgian military neutrality; 
  • focus the State on its sovereign functions; 
  • remove all taxes other than VAT; 
  • restore absolute respect for individual, civil and economic freedoms; 
  • abolish all “legal privileges”; 
  • promote private initiatives in the fight against poverty ;
  • guarantee the free movement of goods and people;
  • end drug prohibition; 
  • free up and put currencies into competition and
  • cancel Belgian public debt

For example, we campaigned in the media for the legalization of cannabis, for the abolition of the national biometric ID card, the suppression of government agencies such as the AFSCA (responsible for bureaucratic food-chain regulations)… We also made educational presentations on new topics such as cryptocurrencies. We also campaigned against the expensive purchase of new fighter airplanes.

“We do not want a bureaucratic construction imposed from above, no federalism, no new deal, no Eurobonds. European construction must be done from below, through natural exchange and the mutual interests between individuals”

What’s your party’s view of the EU and the Euro?

We strive for a Europe that Europe protects its individuals against their own governments: a EU that guarantees human rights, that puts an end to protectionism, that defends the freedom of circulation. Alas, for some time now, the EU has turned into an imperial project of technocratic domination.

We do not want a bureaucratic construction imposed from above, no federalism, no new deal, no Eurobonds. European construction must be done from below, through natural exchange and the mutual interests between individuals.

Regarding the monetary policy, we are highly sceptical of the Euro project and we propose instead to free the financial system and to privatize the emission of money with competing entities.

Belgium recently went a year without a government, was it liberating?

For most of the people most of the time, it didn’t really have much impact. First, we still had a (relatively limited) federal government responsible for the day-to-day management. Secondly, Belgium has a complex organisation with multiple layers of governments: federal, regions, communities, provinces and communes.

Libertarians conspire zealously to take over the world then leave you alone.

Every so often we hear about a possible partition of Belgium, what’s your party’s view on this?

Our party has no specific stance regarding a possible partition of Belgium, but we support the right of the people to self-determination. So if the Flander (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) wishes to secede, it should be their right and it should be respected. In this case, there will be a need to reach a balanced agreement regarding complex questions such as the status of the Brussels Region and the federal debt…

“the positions of MEPs like Syed Kamall and Daniel Hannan have often been a reminder of the value of individual freedoms. They will be greatly missed”

The UK has now left the EU and is due to finally fully transition out at the end of the year, how does your party and your nation more generally view Brexit?

In the same way, the Plib respects the democratic referendum taken by the people of Great-Britain and we now look forward to a mutually beneficial agreement between EU and Great-Britain. We published an article on that subject (in French): https://www.parti-libertarien.be/le-brexit-un-nouveau-depart/.

That being said, our members are generally supportive towards Brexit and the EU is more and more seen as a bureaucratic and centralized entity, increasingly diverging from its original purpose. We at the Plib, are very attached to the principle of subsidiarity.

On the other hand, we fear that by losing British parliamentary representation in the European Parliament, the liberal opposition to the liberticide measures initiated by the European Commission tends to be reduced. Indeed, the positions of MEPs like Syed Kamall and Daniel Hannan have often been a reminder of the value of individual freedoms. They will be greatly missed.

Different countries campaign in elections in different ways, what methods does your party focus on, and do you have any interesting stories from the campaign trail?

In previous elections, we partnered with other associations focused on liberty in order to share the effort and gain more visibility. It is also a nice way to get to know different people and share ideas and experience, even when the others don’t necessarily have the same point of view on some subjects.

What’s your party’s plan for fighting elections and getting the message of liberty out to the electorate?

In the Walloon and Brussels region where we are established, the economic education of the citizens is rather limited and as consequence, a lot people are easily fooled by the promises of populist parties. To give an idea, at the last election in 2019, extremist parties from the far-right and far-left won 30 seats in the parliament, compared to only 5 in the previous elections.

People in general have a limited understanding of economic mechanism and often have a negative view of capitalism, so one of our main mission is to raise awareness of economic realities and the benefits of liberalism for economic development and people well-being.

Be the first to find our standard bearer on the festival and win a cold beer 🙂

If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?

  • Fiscal reform toward a flat tax
  • Instauration of referendum
  • Cannabis legalization

“To facilitate the economic recovery, the government should drastically reduce the taxes for companies and individuals. At the same time, it should cut its spending and engage in structural reforms to reduce the size of the administration”

Lastly how do you think your government is handling the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to be done to help the eventual economic recovery?

Belgium has suffered the worst casualties (in terms of death per million) to the Covid19 and our government has a big responsibility in this crisis.

First the government was completely unprepared for this epidemic, having notably destroyed a large strategic stock of masks just a few months before the crisis. 

Then our health ministry has largely underestimated the gravity of the crisis at the beginning, and refused to take measures to accompany people coming back from affected areas in Italy or cancelling big events to limit the spreading of the virus. 

Once it was no longer possible to deny the gravity of the crisis, our government decided to centrally manage all the aspects of the crisis with the help of ‘experts’, and was given special powers by the parliament to do so. The government then restricted the sales of masks and disinfectant to the population but was not able to buy masks on international markets, thus worsening the shortages. 

The government also strictly limited and controlled the use of screening tests, thus artificially limiting the supply unnecessarily. Notably, the government insisted for weeks that masks were useless for the general population. 

To mitigate the spreading of the virus, the government implemented a strict lockdown that will have a huge economic impact but failed to take effective measures to protect the elderly in nursing homes which were the main victims of the crisis. The government even issued strict instructions to keep the elderly affected by the virus from going to hospitals, consequently, around half of the victims of coronavirus died in nursing homes, not in hospitals.

To facilitate the economic recovery, the government should drastically reduce the taxes for companies and individuals. At the same time, it should cut its spending and engage in structural reforms to reduce the size of the administration, improve its efficiency and greatly simplify all the bureaucracy that is a burden for the citizens.

Interview with Fernando Sobrinho of Partido Libertário – the Libertarian Party of Portugal

The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance was sealed in the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, and is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force.  During that time the Portuguese people have struggled with their fight for freedom and only became a democracy after a coup in 1974.

Their path to personal liberty is now taking on a new chapter.  Partido Libertário (Libertarian Party) of Portugal is a member of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties and is in the process of being constituted as a formal party.  In Portugal parties need to be formally recognised by the Constitutional Court.

We spoke with Fernando Sobrinho one of the party’s founders.  Fernando thank-you for your time, and undertaking this in English.

Fernando Sobrinho

Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about yourself and your party?

My name is Fernando Sobrinho, I am one of the founders of the Association that aims to be the Portuguese libertarian party, Partido Libertário.  I was the first president of this Association and was leading it when we were accepted as members of the IALP – International Association of Libertarian parties.

Partido Libertário’s president is now Carlos Novais and we have about 60 members. We have organized a National Meeting every year since 2014 and we invite libertarians from other countries to attend to it. We have had the honour of receiving Daniel Martinez from P-LIB, Spain and JF Nimsgern from Parti Libertarien, France.

Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction in Portugal

Your party is currently in the process of collecting signatures for formal registration.  Can you tell us about that process and how is it going?

We are in the process of the legalization of the party, 7.500 signatures are needed, but we are focusing in having more effective members. it does not make sense to establish a party if we do not have enough people willing to speak up for us in multiple forums.

Privatizes Everything – Minimum state maximum freedom

“Our Taxation System is a total nightmare, being very progressive on income and achieving effective tax rates bigger than 50% if one’s household is making more than EUR 40K a year”

What are the main issues in Portugal you campaign on, what gets Libertarians excited?

As Portugal ranks 15th in the personal freedom Index of CATO and 34th in the Economic Freedom we do most of our work fighting taxation and economic regulation on our country. Our Taxation System is a total nightmare, being very progressive on income and achieving effective tax rates bigger than 50% if one’s household is making more than EUR 40K a year.

“The current Government is no different from previous – they keep the trend to increase taxes and have all the fantastic ideas on how to bring us happiness as we go bankrupt”

What’s your party’s view of the EU and their thoughts on your membership of the Euro?

What we like in European Union is some degree of freedom of trade of goods and services as well as the freedom of capital and people to invest and work wherever pleases you better. What we oppose to is to its numerous entities that are aimed to supervise these natural rights, like the European Council, European Parliament, etc. Their regulating instincts are a threat to the free zone that we would like Europe to be.

Having the EUR as a national currency is a progress compared to having a Escudo that was printed in massive amounts to meet the socialist plans of the governments we have had in Portugal on last 46 years, all kinds of socialism…

The current Government is no different from previous – they keep the trend to increase taxes and have all the fantastic ideas on how to bring us happiness as we go bankrupt.

The UK has now left the EU and is due to finally fully transition out at the end of the year, how does your party view Brexit?

We regret that UK has left the EU but we believe that it can be as positive to UK, as it will be more open to world trade, as to EU, since the loss of revenue that UK was bringing to European budget is now missing. We hope that Brexit will make Euro bureaucrats a little bit more wise on the impact to freedom of their regulations.

The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending.

“Public Employees in Portugal have privileges that are not granted to the general population – reduce workload, bigger salaries for low qualifies people, special Health protection system, etc.”

If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?

The 3 major laws Portugal need to change are:

1. Labour Law (minimum salary, impossible to fire workers, labour unions over-protected, collective contracts, etc.)

2. Taxation (Reducing Corporate Taxes to competitive level, decrease progressivity on IRS-Income Tax, and reduce VAT and other consumption taxes).

3. Public Employee Status (Public Employees in Portugal have privileges that are not granted to the general population – reduce workload, bigger salaries for low qualifies people, special Health protection system, etc.)

What do you think of your country’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to done to help the economic recovery?

The way Portugal handled the Covid-19 crisis was not different from other south countries, like Italy, France or Spain: The measures taken and their timings were basically the same. I guess that the good results achieved, in terms of DPM (Deaths per Million inhabitants) were just pure luck.

The worst, that is, the economic consequences are still to come, especially because the socialist government is willing to step up and do their thing – bring money to the cronies!

Partido Libertário are on the web, on Facebook, on Twitter and on Instagram.

Interview with Friedrich Dominicus leader of Partei der Vernunft (Party of Reason) – the German Libertarians.

The desire to be free is something deep within the human spirit and not restricted to one group of people or nation.  A member of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties the ‘Partei der Vernunft’ (PDV) or Party of Reason is the German member of the group.

The party was founded in 2009, and campaigns for a minimal state, free markets, decentralization of political power, and direct democracy. It rejects nationalism, racism and any kind of anti-democratic politics.

Whilst the PDV doesn’t have any representatives in the Regional Parliaments or Bundestag they have won elections to local councils.

We interviewed their party leader Friedrich Dominicus, who we are grateful for being able to do this in English.

Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about the party?

Well we are a party, whose program is based on Austrian School Economics especially from Ludwig von Mises. We’re Liberal in the good old European sense, and partly even Libertarian.

Property and law and freedom

What are the main issues in Germany you campaign on, what gets Libertarians excited?

Very simple overall: Less government and especially a sound money system.

“We are against the Euro because we want sound money and competition among diverse currencies as espoused by Hayek“

What’s your party’s view of the EU and the Euro?

Critical against European Union, but we are for free trade worldwide.  We are against the Euro because we want sound money and competition among diverse currencies as espoused by Hayek.

Germany has seen a rapid rise in immigration in recent years, what’s your party’s view on this and what’s your policy going forward?

We are for controlled but quite open borders.  The main point with us is that no-one should have to pay mandatory for immigrants.. If they cannot care for themselves, they should have to find some warrantor(s) for that.

“We are very fond of Brexit and do envy the British quite a bit about it.  We’re the only party in Germany which really want to end this kind of European Union”

The UK has now left the EU and is due to finally fully transition out at the end of the year, how does your party view Brexit?

We are very fond of Brexit and do envy the British quite a bit about it.  We’re the only party in Germany which really want to end this kind of European Union.  We do want free trade and the allowance that anyone can offer his manpower in all the countries.  We also are for free choice of the right of domicile.

Dear Censors, this is a hate posting!
Please intervene immediately. We hate injustice.

Different countries campaign in elections in different ways, what methods does your party focus on, and do you have any interesting stories from the campaign trail?

Well we are a very small party and so we have to go online.  Yes we have some interesting stories, but they are not short ones ?.

What’s your party’s plan for fighting elections and getting the message of liberty out to the electorate?

As always, we point out where the problems are and what comes from following social democratic ways. But liberty is simply not a volitional goal for too many Germans even though we had Ludwig Erhard as Chancellor.

Dear Censors, this is a hate posting!
Please intervene immediately. We hate totalitarian ideologies.

If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?

1) End the European Central Bank and any central bank.

2) We have to change our Grundgesetz (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany) to something much more liberal

3) Get out of the European Union, or at least end this kind of EU.

Like us they like to share Thomas Sowell quotes
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

“Simplify the laws for taxes and make it much easier to offer your working abilities on the market.

And we’d cut down government as much as one possibly can”

Lastly how do you think your government is handling the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to be done to help the eventual economic recovery?

Not much, because their only plan is printing money and higher the debts.  

What we would do is simple.  Simplify the laws for taxes and make it much easier to offer your working abilities on the market.

And we’d cut down government as much as one possibly can.

The Party of Reason are online at https://parteidervernunft.de/, on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Interview with Nimit Shishodia political activist and community campaigner

With over 1.3 billion people and a GDP likely to overtake the UK’s in the next couple of years, India is a country we all need to take notice of.

An estimated 1.4 million British Indians live in the UK, and are classified as the largest visible ethnic group.  With Brexit this is a huge market for Britain to trade with and with so many who are either Indian nationals or of Indian descent here, we have a huge opportunity.

We speak to Nimit Shishodia about Indian politics and to get a flavour of the Indian diaspora in the UK.

Nimit thanks for your time.

Can you tell us a bit about your background and how you came to be living and working in the UK?

I grew up in the suburbs of Delhi.  After my engineering degree, I learnt Japanese for two years. I was intended to go to Japan, but a Japanese company in London had a requirement of bilingual network engineer and I landed in UK and continued to stay here.

“it was great experience to interact with general public as a Conservative campaigner. I found Conservative party members generous, to the group and decent people”

You have become engaged in UK politics and campaigned for Seena Shah the Conservative candidate for Brentford & Isleworth in GE2019. How did you get involved in that?

We, the Mangalam group met Seena in a pub during her campaign and she asked us for help and we decided to support her.  I was the ward coordinator for Syon and Brentford. We have done canvassing, door to door flyer distribution and road shows, it was great experience to interact with general public as a Conservative campaigner. I found Conservative party members generous, to the group and decent people. 

You’re involved in organising India festivals with Mangalam in Hounslow.  How did that come about and what sort of events do you do?

Mangalam is a non-profit organisation based in West London and we primarily do Holi (Color) and Diwali (Fireworks) in March and November, respectively.

I have joined the organisation in Oct 2018 and it has been a great experience so far, with lot of community members and volunteers Mangalam has exponentially grown in last year and supported politics.

Mangalam YouTube channel holds the videos for our activities: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1fPc9IYQj-Ac8p8xfZFHQg

“instead we followed the Mahatama Gandhi’s way of peace – calling the whole act as Gandhigiri. A lot joined on the day for the clean-up and we clearly sent the message out to the other side”

Last year you were recognised by the High Commission for helping clean-up the building.  How did that come about?

We came to know about the mess created around the High Commission of India (HCI).  The Indian diaspora decided not to retaliate in the same way we felt the Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) protestors did to the High Commission, instead we followed the Mahatama Gandhi’s way of peace – calling the whole act as Gandhigiri (the practice of the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi). A lot joined on the day for the clean-up and we clearly sent the message out to the other side.

You have said before this was the first time you had seen the diaspora of the various regions of India come together as one.  What do you think has changed?

I think it was about the country, when people saw what we felt was a threat from Pakistan and PoK protestors over Indian diaspora and HCI, London. People from all over the country united.

What was it like being in the High Commission and most importantly did the High Commissioner serve Ferrero Rocher?

We were treated well in the HCI and we have made so many contacts. Mangalam team was officially invited to dinner by a HCI Counsellor and our efforts were well respected and regarded by the Indian Government, making us feel proud.  Time to time we are invited to various events at the HCI.

The BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) is in power in India and seem to be breaking the hold the Congress Party had for many years.  The Prime Minister Narendra Modi is depicted as a controversial figure over here, what are your thoughts on Modi?

Modi as a PM is a great leader for India, he thinks out of box, work hard and committed to growth of country.  He comes up with great ideas, but at times with a poor execution plan.

“2019 is the first time I saw Indian diaspora supporting Conservatives at such scale, due to the Labour party’s anti-India propaganda”

How do you think the Indian diaspora in the UK generally view India’s domestic politics?

I feel the Indian Diaspora often get too involved in Indian politics, where as they should also indulge in UK politics, since we live here.  2019 is the first time I saw Indian diaspora supporting Conservatives at such scale, due to the Labour party’s anti-India propaganda.

Lastly with Britain having a more global focus away from the EU, what do you see as the opportunities for our countries collaboration over the coming decade?

UK as a country needs industries, small and bigger.   With leaving the EU, this may be an opportunity to rebuild the country with a self-sufficient and self-sustainable model.  I would really love to see British products exported all over the world, boosting the country’s economy.

The Mangalam group are online at http://www.mangalamhcrg.org/ and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/MangalamHounslow/.

Newly risen, how brightly you shine

Never let it be said the Croydon Constitutionalists don’t work for their readers.  In early December Mike Swadling undertook the sacrifice of visiting Australia, to be able to share some thoughts on their politics with you, and ok take in a little sun.  Indeed the title of this article is translated from the Latin state motto of New South Wales, ‘Orta recens quam pura nites’.  It’s fair to say this is an incredibly appropriate motto.

I had hoped to meet-up with the, or a Libertarian Party in Australia much as I have previously in the US making the sacrifice of a visit to the Libertarian Party of Orange County, California.  Sadly I was not able to get in touch with the party, partly because there isn’t much of a separate libertarian strain of Australian politics, indeed only one member of the federal parliament describes themselves as a libertarian, although a couple do descript themselves as Classical Liberals.

This might be partly because politics on the right in Australia is already coalition between the Liberal Party, the main centre right party and more city based and the more country based National Party.  This coalition does allow for a more broad base for people on the economic right.  It may also be partly because voting is compulsory, this results in turnout often around 91% (a $20 fine for not voting in federal elections) and a centralisation of parties.

At a federal level the general election held in May 2019 resulted in a big win for the Coalition in both the House of Representatives and Senate.  This came as a surprise to the national and global media, in the same way that Brexit and Trumps wins came as a surprise.  That all too often the media lives in a bubble that doesn’t speak to the people who voted., Leave, for Trump and for the Coalition was all too evident in their reaction to the win.  Indeed I have written and spoke about this before citing how in 2013 the Ozzies BBC, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, journalists were surveyed with 41% saying they would vote Green, 32% Labor and just 14.7% for the Coalition.  At the next Australian general election the Coalition received 45% of the vote, and the Greens just 8.6 percent.  If you’re interested in knowing more about the Federal Elections I would recommend Helen Dale on Triggernometry after you have finished reading and sharing this page with you all friends of course.

New South Wales

My first encounter down under with Australian politics was to discover this delightful poster on a lamp post in Darling Harbour, Sydney.

I wondered if Jeremy Corbyn worried about his impending election defeat had escaped the country early.  Being in an area where property prices start around the A$1.5million mark (~£750K) and increase quickly, how are these people not already the rich?  Maybe the Islington set had joined me?

My next encounter was a protest against the Carmichael coal mine, set-up in Queensland.  The Stop Adani group appeared to be protesting a private party at Luna Park on Sydney Bay.  The protest was peaceful and from the harbour ferry looked fairly good natured, if a little loud.

A country that has had 28 years of economic growth can afford some environmental protests.  However much of that growth is based on the sale of natural resources including coal to the ever hungry Chinese market.  The fact that the protest wasn’t better attended may be in part because Australia has recently recorded its second straight quarter where the economy shrank on a per capita basis.  Uncertainty is also growing because of increasing property prices which are pricing people further away from jobs.  A private coal mine provides well paid jobs, available to people with a range of educational backgrounds and jobs that can’t be exported.  What’s not to like about that.

It’s safe to say most people didn’t pay too much attention to the protest preferring to enjoy for view of Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House.

Fair dinkum

By and large the Australians I encountered where not that bothered by politics.  In a country where the weather is hot and life is pretty good, who can blame them.  One of the immediate things I noticed about Australia was the lack of Police.  Not that it felt like they were needed, it was in my limited experience a country at ease.

There are challenges, not least because China looms large.  Chinese millionaires and billionaires are understandably keen to move their wealth out of the communist state.  This has led to a major property investment in Sydney and the city expanding with new blocks of flat around railway stations in the suburbs (much like London) paid for with Chinese money. This change to an area creates some concern in areas that were full of detached Australian houses, but thankfully no real backlash.  Chinese students are another area of concern.  Australia has 208,000 Chinese students, this brings in much income to the universities, but also means something like 10% of all students are from China.  This number is large, really large in a country of 24 million people.  Walking around Sydney and Melbourne you are aware of the Chinese influence.  Australia is a nation of immigrants and blends a variety of peoples into being Australians exceptionally well.  It needs to continue the self-belief to do that.

The expansion around Sydney is causing problems many of us in Croydon understand as the previous suburbs become part of the city.  An example of this and the part us Croydonians might not understand is at Yarra bay.  The bay which is part of Bottony Bay where Captain Cook first made land in Australia, is at risk of becoming part of a port for visiting cruise ships taking people to Sydney.  The locals are unhappy, and at 8 and a half miles from the CBD (Central Business District where the main attractions are) it does seem an odd choice.  However Sydney Bay is busy and often has a few cruise ships in it.  Whilst maybe not this solution, it’s easy it see the need to change things.  The tricky part for Croydonians is imagining the River Wandle over burdened with tourists.

The woke crowd is around in Australia.  In the public buildings there is always someone keen to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land.  In the many zoos and wildlife parks you are constantly told how everything is endangered.  With a population density of 9 people per square mile, I suspect many species in Australia really aren’t.  Checking the numbers for Koala Bears, you see estimates from experts in the range of 329,000 to 43,000 with doomsdayer predictions rather than any sense of actual facts.  The Immigration Museum in Melbourne was painfully politically correct, but the Shrine of Remembrance was both fitting and proudly patriotic.

But Australians are by and large unaffected by it all.  At one stop in a League Club, talk turned to the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.  The government pledged to facilitate a private member’s bill to legalise same-sex marriage in the event of a “Yes” outcome.  It’s fair to say most of those around needed to be reminded of the vote.  The outcome was 61.6% in favour of same-sex marriage.  Largely the people I was with didn’t feel strongly about it, and felt free to talk about the pros and cons of the decision without entrenched views in a way you couldn’t imagine happening in London.  Rather than taking a strong stance on the issue they were more interested in ensuring your reporter had another pitcher of VB.  Rather than make my excuses and leave, I felt best to stay to ensure I was a gracious guest and good representative of the mother country.

The League Clubs and Returned and Services League of Australia Clubs (RSL) are interesting places, supporting respectively rugby league clubs and former service men and women.  The clubs are often major venues with a mix of places to eat, drink, be entertained and importantly gamble!  The Pubs as we would think of them are often called Hotels due to historic licencing laws.  These clubs are the main entertainment venue in the sprawling suburbs.

One welcome input from politics was Hawke’s Larger.  Bob Hawke was the Australian PM of much of my childhood.  Many Australians reasonably blame him for the move from a laissez-faire Australia to today’s more overtly taxed and regulated nation.  However the larger was great and policies aside, we can all only wish all political legacies taste so sweet.

Parliaments

Australia is a federal nation.  Each state and territory has significant independence from the national government in Canberra.  So each state has its own parliament.

My first visit was to the New South Wales Parliament in Sydney.  At first glance you will notice how similar to the UK parliament it is.  The parliament is split between the Assembly and Council.  These broadly represent the equivalent of the House of Commons and House of Lords.  If you weren’t clear about that correlation the Green and Red benches and carpets make it clear.  On top of that the fact Hansard take notes in parliament and the Assembly calls out Stranger in the House if they see a non-member cements the deal.

They admit they copied the model from the UK.  The Britishness of the founder members and the honouring of the Queens visit make it clear how closely we are aligned.  The Assembly currently has the Coalition in the majority, members are elected in single member constituencies using a preferential system.  The Council also held by the Coalition is elected by proportional representation in which the whole state is a single electorate.  Could this be a better model for the UK to import from the former colony?

The NWS Parliament council chamber is quite small, frankly as it should be.  It won’t come as a great surprise the Parliament building keeps expanding as its members ‘require’ greater space and acquire greater powers.

Assemblies of New South Wales and Victoria.
You could almost play spot the difference.

The Victoria Parliament in Melbourne, also models itself on the UK parliament.  My reputation preceding me meant I was granted a private tour, or no one else turned up on the day.  I will let you choose the reason.

Victoria and specifically Melbourne split themselves from New South Wales in 1850 and a rivalry (bordering on contempt) still exists today.  Victoria is politically to the left of New South Wales.  The current government is Labor with a large majority in the Assembly and being the largest party in the Council.  As with New South Wales the Assembly members are elected in single member constituencies using a preferential system.  The Council is elected from multi member super constituencies.   The more proportional system leads to some smaller parties like the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, Justice focused on “putting victims above criminals”, Animal Justice Party, Transport Matters Party opposed to the deregulation of taxis, and The Reason Party a “civil libertarian alternative” formally known as the Australian Sex Party.

This leftness of Victoria has seen a more ‘progressive’ set of laws from the parliament.  My otherwise excellent tour guide was keen to point out that the Victoria Parliament was the first to pass laws for seat belt use and to allow assisted dying.  As if infringing liberty and making suicides easier were positives.

Still the parliament is representative.  Despite moves to ‘collaborate’ and align laws across all the states in Australia, as we find leaving the EU, more devolved power at a local level, meeting the different needs of different areas is immensely positive.

Sports Mad

The last sacrifice your intrepid reporter undertook was to tour the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) the 100,024 capacity home of Australian Cricket and Australian Rules Football.  The ground is home to 4 Australian rules football teams and the local area includes a Rugby League and Football (soccer to them) stadium and is home to the Australian Open at Melbourne Park.

The record attendance at the MCG was 143,750 for Billy Graham in 1959.  I mention this because I find it an interesting fact, and to note as someone who isn’t particularly religious it’s small wonder so many were brought together to praise god in a country quite so wonderful.

Title image by Squiresy92 with elements adapted from Sodacan – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Leavers of Croydon, eh?

The Globe and Mail, Canada’s “newspaper of record”, and with a weekly readership of 2,018,923 is Canada’s most widely read newspaper on weekdays and Saturdays.  They also came to see the Leavers of Croydon at our recent drinks.

Thanks to Teresa Eng for interviewing us on the day.

“We’re a sovereign nation – we don’t need to be told what we can and can’t do. I’m not worried about a no-deal Brexit. Let’s get on with it“

HILARY AND ROBERT JUDGE

“The Remainers’ favourite excuse is “no deal.” The U.S., China and India, three of the world’s largest economies, trade with no deal. I’m proud that the majority of the British public were smart enough to see that the dots didn’t add up. The whole thing about no deal being a kind of Armageddon is complete fabrication”

TIM DUCE

“The EU is a country, but I’m not a United States of European. I’m British. I want us to be a self-governing entity”

MIKE SWADLING

Full article – https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-the-faces-of-brexit-leave-and-remain-supporters-reflect-on-three/

Libertarian Party Orange County, California

We’ve all heard of the Republican and Democratic Parties in the USA, but the third party of the US is the Libertarian Party. Third place in the last 2 presidential elections it is a party that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism and shrinking the size and scope of government. When I was recently in Orange County California, I visited the local chapter www.lpoc.org at their Executive Committee Meeting.

Part of the greater Los Angeles area, Orange Country contains a number of cities including Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, Fullerton and Newport Beach where at the public library the meeting was held. In the 2018 House elections, Orange County, a famously Republican island in Democratic California, elected 6 Democrats for the House of Representatives, taking 4 seats from the Republicans.

Orange County has 1.7 million registered voters, of whom 13,000 (~1%) are registered Libertarians. The party has about 80 members, and like all minor parties’ struggles with a lack of resources to get its message out. As someone who has sat on many a committee meeting for a smaller party, the meeting felt very familiar and reassuring, if slightly depressing that I travelled 5000 miles and the challenges are much the same.

How did the Libertarians fair in the last elections?

California operates a top two primary system for many (but not all) races, whereby the top two candidates in the primaries run off in the main election. This often means both candidates are from the same party. The system works against smaller parties and meant the Libertarians had very few candidates in the local elections. The party have been successful in raising concerns about the system in the local media https://ocweekly.com/third-parties-shafted-again-in-oc-on-nov-ballot-thanks-to-jungle-primaries/

In Orange County between local, state wide and national elections, the Libertarians did field three candidates. This included a 2nd place finish with 24.8% of the vote in 69th district race for the California Assembly. In neighbouring Riverside county Libertarian Jeff Hewitt won a role on the board of supervisors (think something like a GLA member). In this race he raised $600,000 more than UKIP and the Greens spent combined in the 2017 General Election and was still outspent 3 times by the Republican candidate he beat.

Getting onto ballots varies by election type. Some elections require a filing fee, some only signatures, which requires a lot of campaign effort https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_California. Once you are on the ballot, getting basic information out to voters in the formal information packs can cost thousands of dollars.

The focus for the party now is the 2020 election cycle and getting candidates elected. They really are focused on winning elections. Emphasised a few times in the meeting was the need to focus on issues not philosophy, and the need to be a political party not a philosophy club. There was a strong feeling Libertarians had for too long been focused on ideology rather than getting votes. The Chair used the slogan “reasonable solutions for issues we all care about”, which felt a great way to move forward. Have Libertarian principles, but be relevant to people.

Local campaigning differs in a few ways in the US. Anyone who has campaigned in the UK will know the joy of finding, using and trying to not get bitten by, letter boxes. In the US the federal government owns your ‘mailbox’ as such leafleting is less of a feature. You can leave a leaflet on a porch or stuck in a door, but can be fined if deposited in a mailbox. The feds wanting campaigns to pay the US Postal Service for leaflet delivery. The local party runs a table at the student fair, operates on social media and does canvassing although this really requires greater numbers of people than available.

Everywhere there is more money in US politics, even the local group has exceeded the $2000 funding threshold to report to California Political Practices Commission. This is someway north of what most small local parties in the UK would have. They are thinking of investing some of this in a button making machine, something very American. Much like at home where local Labour and Conservative clubs support but aren’t officially linked to the party the group has two Libertarian clubs (groups that meet up) which are a mix of party and social gatherings.

What are the issues in Orange County?

The main traction for the Libertarians is fiscal conservativism, with lots of support for social media posts on less regulation for businesses and lower taxes. They are also starting to focus on the more positive immigration stance of the party to set them apart from the Republicans. In an area where housing is as expensive as London, zoning rules to help reduce property costs is also coming to the fore.

It was great to see a bit of politics from across the pond. Also how a smaller party operates with a lot stacked against them. The fight for individual freedom and liberty really matters, and these guys plugging away for it get my support every time.

Author Mike Swadling