Keeping American democracy at bay

Public opinion polls in the United States consistently have President Donald Trump trailing Democratic challenger Joe Biden by an average of four per cent, in some cases as high as seven — so everything points to a change of Government in November. Right?

Wrong.

This is not to say that Biden won’t win, but simply polling the voting choices of individual Americans is not the way to predict the outcome of this election.

Trump could still be four points, even seven points behind in the popular vote on Election Day and still retain the presidency by a handy margin.

The reason lies in one of the strangest indirect systems of choosing a leader that has been devised — the Electoral College.

Americans may think they are voting for either Trump or Biden, but in fact they are voting for a member of this Electoral College in their State who may, in turn, vote for their choice — or not.

These electors, equalling the number of seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives for their particular State, will meet about a month later and their votes, and their votes alone, decide the presidency.

It would not be so bad if their voting pattern reflected that of the electorate at large, but sometimes it doesn’t. This is because no matter how close the race is in their state they cast all their votes for the candidate that finished ahead.

Whether that margin was just by a handful of votes, or by a landslide, it does not matter. In all but two of the states, the votes of the Electoral College are delivered on a winner-takes-all basis.

So it is easy to see how a candidate that won a plurality by small majorities in a significant number of States can defeat the candidate that won other States by big margins that puts them ahead on the overall national vote.

It happened in 2016 when Hillary Clinton gained 65.8 million votes to Trump’s 62.9 million, and was still beaten, quite handily in the Electoral College 304-227.

It has been argued countless times since about how the pollsters got it wrong. They didn’t. Their predictions were spot on.

The problem was that they were asking individuals how they would vote when the election was going to be decided by other means. They were comparing apples with oranges.

How has this potentially undemocratic way of choosing a leader in what is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy come about?

To understand it we need to look back at the nation’s Founding Fathers who drew up the country’s Constitution in the wake of the successful war of Independence against the British.

History has tended to romanticise this group as champions of democracy and the rights of man. They were anything but.

They were aristocrats; many were slave owners and having expelled the British ruling class were intent on filling the void.

As men of property, they considered that unrestrained democracy would be as bad as the tyranny they had just ousted; that giving equal votes to all would threaten their standing, their possessions, even their lives.

So putting men of discernment between themselves and the mob would mitigate their greatest fear of pure democracy — that the uneducated and unsophisticated masses might elect a demagogue who would sweep away their wealth and privileges.

Given the complicated processes needed to effect a change in the US Constitution it is hard to see anything different happening soon, but agitation will and should continue to abolish this antiquated system with its roots in factors that have no relevance to the citizenry of a powerful world state in the 21^st century.

Evidence of an unhealthy relationship

China has taken a great deal of criticism over its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak in recent days as its friends rushed to its defence.

Inevitably, these have included Australian captains of industry such as Kerry Stokes and Andrew Forrest whose billion-dollar businesses are very much tied up with the People’s Republic.

Stokes even took out an advertisement in the Western Australian newspaper (which he happens to own) quite baldly stating that if the country continued to attack Beijing the consequences for the Australian economy would be “catastrophic”.

In other words, he was saying that Australia should give in to what is straight-out blackmail by China.

Forrest added his opinion by stating: “I don’t know if this virus started in China or somewhere else and frankly, I don’t care.”

Both industrialists can be given full marks for their honesty — the fact they put economic gain over the consequences of a disease that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide, and the need to do everything possible to prevent it happening again.

In this they are firmly in the camp of the likes of United States President Donald Trump and Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro.

What they are not being so honest about is their own roles in getting Australia into a position where China’s economic clout can be used to bludgeon critics into silence.

China accounts for almost 29 per cent of Australia’s exports, more than twice that of the second largest destination. Japan, while all other nations are in single figures. How has this been allowed to happen?

There are other countries in the world that need what Australia has. What about India that receives a miserable 4.3 per cent of Australian exports? Admittedly India’s economy is not nearly the size of China’s but until COVID-19 it was expanding more rapidly, yet it has been virtually ignored.

What about the thriving economies of South-East Asia: Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam? Of course their markets are way smaller, but together they receive just 7.5 per cent of Australia’s exports. The Middle East? Only the United Arab Emirates features in the top 10 at 1.3 per cent. South America? Nowhere.

Over the years our exporters have treated these countries with disdain while growing fat on the ever-expanding demands from Beijing. Their laziness and greed has placed the country in the unenviable position of being little more than a client State to the People’s Republic.

In recent days there are signs that China is being more accommodating to global calls for an accounting of the causes of COVID-19. The Australian Government’s measured response in seeking some form international inquiry, while short on detail, is at least preferable to some of the hysterical accusations emanating from Washington. It deserves universal consideration if not support.

However, the fact remains that the Chinese Government’s aggressive stance to Australia has had its exporters jumping to attention. Beijing knows it is in a position to push Canberra around. Its response indicates the current relationship is not a healthy one.

There are other neglected places in the world where Australia should be doing more business. It will be harder work, and the results will be piecemeal, but it needs to happen.

Diversification should be Australia’s watchword in a post-pandemic world.   

Brexit: Still time for second thoughts?

In the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, best-selling author Sir Philip Pullman has reignited the debate over the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, saying the Conservative Government is more interested in appeasing “the foaming zealots of Brexit” than addressing the pandemic.

Sir Philip says there is a need for a second referendum on EU membership as there “are so many clear advantages to being in the EU and the benefits of leaving are so tenuous”.

His call comes after the Government led by Boris Johnson reiterated its determination to keep to a December 31 deadline for cementing a trade deal with Brussels or leave without one — an outcome that many observers believe would have long-term disastrous consequences for the nation’s economy.

While Mr Johnson has until July to seek an extension to the talks, which the EU would certainly accept, Johnson is doggedly sticking to his belief that a comprehensive deal can still be struck by his original deadline, despite the distractions of the pandemic.

“The Government will not ask to extend, and if the EU asks, we will say no,” a spokesperson for Johnson said.

The former Secretary of the Department for Exiting the European Union, Philip Rycroft said this rigid attitude flew in the face of commonsense “when the huge uncertainties caused by the Coronavirus pandemic are factored in”.

He was echoed by Lord Kerslake, who led the Civil Service from 2011 to 2014.

“The lost time as a consequence of COVID-19 has [a trade deal by the end of the year] gone from being ambitious to almost impossible,” he said.

The sad fact is that there is no room for argument on the matter from within the Government. At the December election all candidates for the Conservative Party had to sign a pledge that they would support leaving the EU whatever the cost.

Dissenters — and there were plenty in the party leading up to the election — were forced out. The ‘broad church’ of views and opinions that Conservatism was once so proud of no longer exists.

This has led to the Government to being little more than a shadow of Nigel Farage’s single-issue Brexit Party — something that Sir Philip believes should be a window of opportunity for the Opposition Labour Party.  

“My hope that this time the Labour Party under a new leader will play a proper part in the argument; and that the lies, the cheating, the flagrant and shameless mendacity will be fully exposed by a strong, passionate, and focused campaign to Remain,” he said.

Whether new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer will go as far as that is doubtful, but advocating for a second referendum on the EU exit would be popular with the 48 per cent of the population that voted Remain in the 2015 poll as well as others among Leavers who are having second thoughts.

The precedent is already there. After Britain joined the bloc in 1973 following a parliamentary vote, a referendum, launched by Labour two years later, confirmed the decision.

The current Government will fight that proposal tooth and nail because it knows it might well lose, but it will not be there forever and Sir Keir could benefit by incorporating such a vote into the party’s platform at an early date.