Ambassdor Kirby Speeches

Elections in the U.S.

Speech by H.E. Michael D. Kirby,
Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of Moldova
February 26, 2008, 13.00
Sala Magnifica of the Free International University of Moldova

Dear Rector Galben and Vice Rector Gutu,

Students and professors,

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak before you.  As my topic, I chose to share with you some thoughts about elections and the electoral process in the United States.  Our electoral season is in full swing, nine months from our national elections.  I’m sure you’ve seen news coverage of the campaigns, and like most Americans, have tried to understand the constantly changing elections scene.

Let me make clear from the beginning that the U.S. electoral system is not perfect.  In fact, Americans would say that our government is not perfect either.  We benefit from a system that Thomas Jefferson, who was our third President and one of the drafters of our Constitution, called the least worst of all governmental systems.  More than a century later, British leader Winston Churchill echoed Jefferson's description when Churchill described democracy as, "the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." 

Thomas Jefferson recognized that the people—society—were the ones who best could decide how they wanted to be governed.  In 1820 he stated, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves."  Through participation in elections, the people maintain that power.  No democracy can exist without an effective electoral process.

At the same time, democracy doesn't mean just holding elections.  Elections give shape and meaning to the "ultimate powers of society" to which Jefferson referred.   Elections must be held on a regular basis.  Elections must allow citizens the opportunity to decide their system of government; elections give the government marching orders; elections tell government officials what policies and programs the citizenry most supports.   Thus, elections must provide real choices on various governmental policies and programs.  Citizens must have free access to information that will allow them to make an informed choice about candidates and issues.  And citizens must be free to participate in the electoral process without fear or coercion. 

Belief in these electoral standards is not limited to the United States.   In fact, they are recognized by the advanced democracies of the world.  The United States is part of a global community which shares traditions of democratic representation, the rule of law, and constitutional protections of citizens' rights. 

While all democracies share these universal values, the electoral process itself varies from country to country.  Both our history as a nation and our constitution have contributed to creating some unique features of the U.S. electoral process.

When the British colonies that became the United States were striving to become independent, the founders of the United States created the first constitution to organize the new nation’s government.  They called this document the Articles of Confederation and approved them in 1777.  The founders didn't want a strong central government.  Under the Articles, each state of the new United States retained its "sovereignty, freedom and independence," and the functions of the federal government were strictly limited.  Each state had one voting member in Congress.  To prevent the central government from becoming too powerful, the Articles of Confederation stated that the legislative branch—we call our parliament the Congress—could not force the states to comply with the federal laws it passed.

You should know that as a group Americans neither like nor trust government.  While our original leaders tended to be wealthy and for the time – well educated, they instinctively disliked the idea that a government and the people who represented it could tell them what to do.  We have a saying in the United States: “A government that governs best governs least.”   Even today more than 230 years after our country was formed, Americans look first to themselves then to their community to resolve problems.  Only as a last resort do we look to our government.

Therefore, with the Articles of Confederation, we deliberately created a weak central government. 

It soon became clear that such a system did not allow for an effective federal government.  Because the central government could not impose taxes, the federal government had to request funds from the states.  A second concern was that the system gave small and large states an equal vote, an equal say, in the legislative decision-making process.  Larger states were expected to contribute more funds to the government, yet each state had the same single vote.

In the words of George Washington, the first President of the United States, the government created by the Articles of the Confederation was "little more than the shadow without the substance."  As Americans recognized the need for a stronger federal government, leaders from various states gathered to draft a more effective constitution. 

In 1789, the founders of the United States replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution of the United States of America.  This Constitution has served as the supreme law of the United States for 218 years.  The drafters of the U.S. Constitution made the national governmental structure supreme.  They also recognized the importance of state and local governments which maintained more direct contact with the people and were more keenly attuned to the people's needs.  This Constitution has succeeded largely because it carefully balances the many competing interests within our nation.  And because it is very hard to change.

This Constitution defines the United States specifically as a federal republic.  In its federal system, the United States has a strong central government, as well as governments at state and local levels.  Each level of government has clearly defined powers and responsibilities.  In the case of the United States, those powers that are not explicitly given to the federal government belong to the states.

The United States is a "republic" in that citizens hold the power of governance, but exercise their power through elected representatives.  In a republican system, we chose people to represent our views in national and state legislatures.  We entrust our elected representatives to make decisions on our behalf.  Particularly in such a large country as ours, it would be very difficult for citizens to vote directly on every issue 

Additionally, the United States has a presidential system.  As you know, in many parliamentary systems, the people vote for a party slate and the political party or coalition which wins the most votes then chooses a prime minister and/or a president.  In contrast to parliamentary systems, the American president is elected separately from the legislature on the basis of personal popularity and the ideas and agenda he or she presented as a candidate.  In the United States, the President is both head of government and head of state.  Once elected, the President has the power to act on his or her ideas simply through the actions of the executive branch. 

The 16^th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, knew this well.  As Americans debated slavery during the Civil War, in 1862 Lincoln assembled his cabinet to get their opinions about his idea of issuing a proclamation to free slaves by presidential decree.  Knowing that many supporters of the President did not agree with freeing the slaves, every member of his cabinet voted no.  After listening to each vote, historians report that President Lincoln said “I vote yes.  That makes seven no’s to one yes. The ayes have it.”  He then issued the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the United States.

However, the U.S. Constitution also reserves many powers for the legislative branch of government.  Since we choose our legislative representatives separately from our President, we have had governments in which the President does not belong to the same party as the majority of the members of the legislature.  Before I discuss the challenges this situation can cause, allow me to share a bit more information about our electoral system.

The American constitutional principle of federalism created a layered system of federal, state, and local governments.  The United States has 50 state governments plus the governments of counties, cities, towns, and villages, each with its own officeholders.  Our educational system, for example, is mostly managed at the local level by school districts.  We have nearly 40,000 school districts, and for each school district we elect school boards.  This layered system can make the government very complicated and confusing indeed.

I'll take an example from the 2004 national elections.  Voters in the state of Arizona could vote for the President of the country; a senator to represent their state at the national level; a congressional representative to represent their particular region of the state at the national level; several state-level officials, including a governor, secretary of state and attorney general; local officials, including a mayor, city council members, school board members, a sheriff, and even 73 judges. As if this wasn’t complex enough, the ballot also included a vote on nine issues, ranging from salary levels for newly elected local officials to changing the process for putting questions on the ballot

There is at least one area, however, in which the American political system appears simpler than that of most parliamentary systems.  That is America’s two-party system.   Many countries have 10 or more parties in the legislature at any time, with each representing a particular set of values and programs. 

The American two-party competition stands out as one of our political system's most salient and enduring features.  The two main parties are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.  Those two parties have dominated American electoral politics since the 1860s.  But the two-party system was not planned.  The U.S. Constitution does not even mention parties.  As the United States grew and the vote was extended to include nearly all citizens, candidates found they needed a system for mobilizing voters, and political parties did the job.  In 1800, the United States became the first nation to develop political parties that had national reach.  From that time, two parties have always dominated, although it took another sixty years for the Republican and Democratic Parties to become the leading parties.  Since then, they have dominated U.S. politics. 

Other parties do exist.  Seventy-one parties have registered for the presidential elections that will take place this year.  The list of registered parties includes the Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, the Socialist Workers Party, the Green Party, the Family Values Party and the Labor Party.  Yet no one doubts that the winner will be either a Republican or a Democrat.  The 69 minor parties each appeal to a small group of people, usually on a narrow issue.  The leading parties have formed coalitions that include Americans with many interests.

Thus, when you look at the American political scene, you will not see the head of the government or the leader of the winning party struggling to form and maintain a coalition and to create a ruling majority, as in a parliamentary system.  The coalition-building occurs within the two major parties, not between parties.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties draw significant support from various socioeconomic, ethnic, regional, religious and issue-focused groups.  To win an election, candidates must understand and respond to the wishes of a wide variety of citizens.

But this leads to another peculiarity of the American electoral process.  I’m sure you have noticed that the campaign for the 2008 presidential electoral season began many months ago.  Over 15 individuals declared their desire to run for president on either the Republican or Democratic ticket.  All traveled the country campaigning and participated in town hall meetings and debates.  Americans can follow these candidates through television and radio, in newspapers and magazines, and on the Internet.  Why did these candidates start so early and work so hard when the election won't take place until November 8th?  In the United States, the voters do not just elect a president from among the candidates selected by the political parties.  Registered voters also determine who will become the candidate for each party.  Early in the year of the presidential elections, each state holds a primary election or caucus.  At the primary election or caucus, all the registered members of the same party vote for their party's presidential and congressional nominees to compete in the general election against the other party's nominees.   The Democratic and Republican primaries began almost two months ago.  The candidates have been campaigning to win the primary elections, to become the party’s candidate in the general election. 

As the Republican Party candidates competed against each other, they have been trying to win the support of the various factions and issue-groups of the Republican Party.  They have sought the support of social and religious conservatives, of fiscal conservatives, of foreign-policy hawks, of inhabitants of certain regions of the U.S., and of small-government proponents.  The Democratic Party candidates have tried to gain the support of various ethnic groups, of environmental activists, of anti-war groups, of big-government proponents and of inhabitants of other regions of the United  States.  In effect, the Republican and Democratic Parties in the U.S. are coalitions.  In parliamentary systems, coalitions usually are formed after the elections when the party leaders try to figure out how to put together a majority.   In our system, those coalitions are formed during the electoral season and maintained during governance. 

At first look, it appears that the primary process would interfere with the process of building coalitions within the party.  Each candidate tries to identify how he or she is different from the other candidates.  Candidates collect support from various groups.  When candidates realize they will not win and drop out of the race, however, they suggest to their supporters that they vote for one of the remaining candidates.

Two important candidates chose to end their campaigns on January 29.
When Senator John Edwards announced the end of his presidential candidacy for the Democratic Party, he said he had contacted the two remaining Democratic Party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.   Edwards said, “They have both pledged to me, and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.  ”He urged his supporters to support whichever candidate eventually became the Democratic Party nominee.

The Republican Party candidates who have withdrawn from the race have worked to strengthen their party.  When Rudy Giuliani, a centrist Republican candidate, withdrew from the race on January 29, he specifically endorsed John McCain, saying "John McCain is the most qualified candidate to be the next commander-in-chief of the United States."  Once Giuliani recognized that he would not win, he attempted to strengthen the campaign of the other Republican candidate that he agreed with the most.
But to win the nomination and eventual election, McCain must also convince the conservative wing of the Republic Party to vote for him.  John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are still in the Republican Party race, fighting to attract these conservative voters.

At the beginning of the primary season, the candidates appealed to their party's voters based on narrow interests.  As candidates drop out of the race, the remaining candidates broaden their appeal to include more diverse groups. 

This summer, the Republican and Democratic Parties will hold their national conventions.  During those conventions, the candidates who receive the most votes from the state primary elections will be chosen to represent the party in the presidential and congressional elections.  The winning candidates from the Democratic and Republican Parties will compete against each other during the general elections. 

The general elections will take place after the conventions.  The two main political parties will devote considerable resources to support their presidential candidates.

On elections day, Americans actually do not elect their President directly.  Although the names of the candidates appear on the ballots, the people technically do not vote for the president.  Instead, they vote for presidential "electors" from their state.  In all except two states [Nebraska and Maine], the presidential candidate with the highest number of votes in each state wins all the "electoral votes" of that state.   Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the sum of U.S. members of Congress (representatives plus senators) for that state.  For example, the state of California has 55 presidential electors and the state of Tennessee has 11 presidential electors. 

The electors of all 50 states and the District of Columbia — a total of 538 persons — make up what is known as the electoral college.   The founders of the United States designed the electoral college so that common citizens would not directly choose the President.  The founders did not want such a momentous decision to be left solely in the hands of average voters.   After the elections on November 8, the electoral college will meet on December 15 to choose the President.  The electors from each state cast their votes for the candidate with the largest number of popular votes in their state.  To win, a candidate for the presidency must receive at least 270 electoral votes out of the possible 538.   On rare occasions, a candidate who does not receive the greatest number of popular votes nationwide does receive sufficient electoral-college votes to win the election, as happened in the 2000 elections between George W. Bush and Al Gore.  The U.S. Constitution stipulates that, if no candidate wins at least a majority of 270 electoral-college votes, the decision shall be made by the House of Representatives, with one vote per state.  Luckily, this has never happened.

After the electoral college meets and chooses the next President, the winner will be sworn in to office on January 20, 2009, and will become the 44^th President of the United States.

As we look at America’s complex electoral system, we should not lose sight of the purpose for that system.  As in any democracy, the process is designed to ensure that the nation’s citizens can exercise their right to govern themselves, through free and open elections.  The electoral procedures that each nation develops ensure that people can freely choose their political representatives and decide the broad political direction their government will take.   

Let me make clear that we do not wish to impose our electoral practices on any country.

The electoral season we have begun in the United States continues to be interesting.  We Americans have various choices in candidates.  We cannot take for granted our civil rights and political freedoms.  We must learn about the candidates and their positions; we should review carefully our choices; and we should exercise our power to choose our government.