The twists and
turns in the US Presidential election counting seem to surprise but should not
surprise. The manner in which the votes are being counted leave much to be
desired. It apparently seems the Democratic Party machinery leveraged the
absentee ballots well to bring down Trump. Apparently, they had to bring down
Trump irrespective of what it takes to do him. The pollsters had predicted a
heavy swing towards Biden yet it did not materialise. They too have their
reputations to keep. Therefore they too have a vested interest in calling more
states for Biden so as to come true in terms of their electoral college
landslide prediction. If they had predicted a Georgia flip, it must happen
irrespective of the means it takes. Trump too is unlikely to go down without a
fight. As things stand now, it looks the elections will be challenged and the
Republicans hope that the conservative majority in the Supreme Court might hand
them the victory.
There is no
doubt prima facie, that there appears to fraudulent means at work to snatch victory
in key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia among others. Reports of
long dead people casting votes through absentee ballots is making rounds. The reports
of Republican observers being shunted out of the counting rooms is hardly
inspiring. Numerous reports partisan or otherwise are floating on hundred
percent plus voting. Voting seems to continue even after counting is over and
they too are being taken into account for counting. These issues arise
primarily because each state has its own set of rules when it comes to managing
elections. The Federal Election Commission regulates only campaign financing
and most of the times is toothless.
Compared to US,
India is perhaps far more advanced. The advent of EVMs have reduced the
probability of electoral fraud. The election commission in India is
independent. It is not that India did not witness malpractices. For decades at
least until 1989, Congress had a monopoly over election management. It was not
unknown for the ballot boxes to be replaced while in transit. It was not
unknown to mark ballot papers with extra ink to make them invalid. There were
enough instances when opposition agents were thrown out of the polling stations
or the counting centres. From 1989 onwards, the Congress monopoly was
challenged by the heartland who adopted the same techniques. The violence in
late 1980s and early to mid-1990s especially in Bihar was a direct result of
these contestations at the booth. The multi-phase voting in India emerged
because of the election related violence. Yet the Indian election commission
starting from the 1990s constantly asserted itself barring few exceptions like
Naveen Chawla to ensure free and fair polls. Yet the centralised election
commission in the US was not possible. Nor the US desires to have centralized
model for Presidential elections. In India, the local body elections come under
the purview of the State election commission and evidence from Bengal points to
similar instances as we see in US.
There is another
positive point in India. This relates to virtual absence of mail-in ballots for
people outside election or national service. In the US, the Election Day is not
a holiday. So therefore to facilitate voting, people can cast their votes in
advance either in-person or through mail-in ballots. The acceptance of these
ballots and time frames are essentially left to the states. If there were to be
mail-in ballots introduced in India, the situation would be very similar.
Parties could very form strategies to leverage these mail-in ballots to their
advantage. In fact, even in these times of the pandemic induced by the Chinese
virus, the election commission has not extended the postal ballot facility to
others. The only exception seems to be those above eighty years of age and
those who are physically handicapped. In the light of the US elections, this seems
to be one of the best decisions taken by the commission. Once a practice is
allowed even though they might be extreme circumstances, the practice becomes
the norm. Sooner, it would turn into a strategy. Without the system to
undertake double checks, this system might collapse and turn into a free for
all. Unless there exists a system with sufficient checks and balances with
robustness, there is no way forward for the postal ballot system.
Unlike India,
where the central election commission acts independently and acts with
authority, the US has never seen such things. The problem in the US derives
itself from the structure of governance. Unlike India which is federal and the
central government has residual powers, in the US it is the states that have
the residual powers. The US built itself as Union of States that came together
in specific circumstances. Post the War of independence they came together to
form the United States of America. Yet for the crown colonies, they had to face
certain trade-offs. They would have to surrender their power and privileges to
the federal government. In exchange for surrender they demanded something in
return. This meant that states would have powers more than the provinces in the
other countries. The states got tremendous leeway and even the right to secede
something that later led to the civil war in 1861. The states evolved their own
framework in almost every aspect. The elections too were no exceptions. They framed
the policy for elections to be conducted in the states. To the elections for US
House or Senate, they got the freedom to frame the mechanisms essential. Though
in later years, it was the federal laws that led to the uniformity in many
aspects, the procedural aspects remained the preserve of the state. Therefore
in the presidential elections, from the candidate filing nominations and thus
being on the ballot to the conduct of the elections, the voting procedures, and
the counting process everything differs from state to state. Each state would
set its rules prior to the elections. This leads to wide variance in the
electoral practices. States would anyway resist on many grounds the
desirability for uniform practices across the states. In India, the creation of
the country was top down. Therefore the central election commission could frame
uniform practices across the states. In fact Jammu and Kashmir had its own
election commission at least until 1967. The electoral credibility of J&K
was thus eroded in the first two decades and perhaps are in some ways
contributing to the problem there.
As observed
above, it is evident that the differences are in part due to the evolution of
the modern nation in these two countries. While India emerged top down, the US
emerged bottom up and hence the differences. Therefore, in many ways, despite imperfections,
Indian elections have been a continuum to a journey of perfection and fairness
while US has moved in the reverse direction.
Comments
Post a Comment