The
2000 election and the future of American politics
by Nicol C. Rae, Professor
and Chair, Department of Political Science
| The
2000 election was one of the closest
and most controversial presidential
contests in U.S. history. Republican
George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al
Gore by just five votes (271-266) in
the Electoral College, while losing
the national popular vote by over |
Nicol
C. Rae
|
half a millionvotes. Moreover, Bush's electoral
margin came from a bitterly contested 537-vote
victory in Florida, whose 25 electoral votes
were finally awarded to him by a contentious
5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The
post-election fracas in Florida raised a host
of issues both locally and nationally including:
the future of the Electoral College, reform
of local election procedures, and the authority
of the Presidency. Yet despite all the sound
and fury at the end of last year, what are
the likely, long-term political implications
of the 2000 election?
Certainly,
some serious reforms appear to be in order. The most ambitious of these, however
the abolition of the Electoral College is a non-starter. The original
rationale for the college was to remove the choice of the chief executive from
the direct popular election that the framers feared might lead to "mob rule" and
to provide a role for the states in the selection of the president. While the
Electoral College had thrice denied the presidency to the popular vote winner
during the 19th century, it had been widely believed that such an outcome in the
modern era would instantly lead to a national outcry for the abolition of this
"undemocratic anachronism." This has not happened. Perhaps the furor over the
voting and the vote counting in Florida overshadowed the broader issue of Gore's
victory in the popular vote, or perhaps the American public is more susceptible
to arguments based on tradition and the role of states in presidential selection
than had been previously believed. In any event, the prospects of any significant
reform of the Electoral College (never mind abolition which would require a constitutional
amendment) appear to be extremely remote.
The prospects for reform appear much brighter
regarding election procedures particularly
since the freakishly close count in Florida
highlighted a number of irregularities that
are probably more commonplace in elections
nationwide than had hitherto been realized.
The response to the infamous "butterfly ballot,"
and the "overvotes" and "undervotes" produced by punch-card systems in key Florida
counties, has been a movement in Florida and nationally to move toward optical-scanner
or touch-screen systems which are held to be easier to use and more accurate.
Without significant injections of state and federal dollars, however, this new
technology will place a heavy financial burden on counties, and it remains to
be seen whether the political will for such a major change can be maintained.
Such efforts would, of course, signify a significant move toward the standardizations
of ballots and elections practices in the U.S. a course also perhaps implied
by the Supreme Court's attention to "equal protection" arguments in the decisive
case of Bush vs. Gore.
In
terms of long-term electoral trends, the 2000 results generally fit the pattern
of American election results in the 1990s. In contrast to the Republican presidential
dominance and the Democratic congressional dominance of the 1980s, the 1990s were
characterized by close and highly competitive elections at all levels of the federal
government. After 2000, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and
the presidency for the first time since 1953, but only nominally: Democrat Al
Gore got more popular votes for president, the Senate is tied, and the Republicans
have a mere 5-vote majority in the House. Interestingly, American politics today
bears some resemblance to the late 19th century (1868-1896), which also witnessed
high partisan fervor, and fantastically close national elections. Similar to today,
there was also a broad (laissez faire) consensus between the parties on
economic issues during this period, with party divisions then, as now, being most
evident on ethnic/cultural issues. In the case of the late 19th century: immigration,
temperance, religion and the lingering legacy of the civil war; and today: abortion,
gay rights, affirmative action and the lingering legacy of the 1960s. Patrick
Buchanan's declaration of a "culture war" at the 1992 Republican convention echoed
the Rev. Samuel Burchard's notorious 1884 description of the Democrats as the
party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion."
Given
these circumstances, what are the prospects for the Bush presidency? On the face
of it, a president elected in this fashion, with only narrow control of both houses
of Congress, should have no prospect of claiming a mandate for change in public
policy. Yet the astonishing fact that Bush is already claiming a mandate for his
policies (principally, significant reductions in personal taxation) without being
laughed off the political stage by the national news media and other key players
in Washington D.C., is testimony to the extent to which the U.S. has become a
presidential nation, no matter how tenuous the president's legitimacy. The normal
midterm swing against the president's party appears to doom Bush's Republicans
to lose control of Congress in the 2002 midterm elections. Moreover, all previous
presidents who won the White House while losing the national popular vote
John Quincy Adams, Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison served just one term in
office. To succeed, Bush will have to adhere to a centrist path that makes it
difficult for the Democratic party to unite in opposition to him and simultaneously
keeps conservative Republicans in the fold: in a sense, a Republican version of
President Clinton's successful strategy of "Triangulation." As Republicans traditionally
get clobbered electorally when recessions occur on their watch, Bush must further
hope that any economic downturn occurs sufficiently early in his administration
for the economy to recover and help him electorally in 2004.
So beyond the immediate
controversy over the result, the 2000 election broadly confirmed the 1990s electoral
pattern. Only an unforeseen economic or other global cataclysm is likely to disrupt
the current American political configuration of high partisanship and close, bitterly
contested elections between the two major parties.
Nicol C. Rae
