America Has Unfair Elections, Too

Naturally, it is understood by all that the recent Syrian Presidential election was utterly unfair, with only one viable candidate being presented to the people and no serious opposition to this candidate being allowed. But does the audience (especially the non-U.S.A.ian readers of this blog) know that in 2012, almost 3% of the House of Representatives and almost 40% of state legislators in the United States, a known beacon of democracy, were elected via single-candidate elections? Of course, the impact of these single-candidate elections is somewhat mitigated by a typically competitive primary process and a much freer media environment than in Syria. However, it is to be remembered that the closest American equivalent to Assad’s re-election this year was Lincoln’s re-election in 1864, which was carried out during wartime with severe political repression of many opponents of Lincoln’s presidency. However, U.S.A. 1864 was a much more competitive Presidential election than Syria 2014, at least in regard to the popular vote. I think all U.S. states should adopt amendments to their constitutions prohibiting single-candidate elections. Election reform at home is bound to be much more productive than opposition to Assad’s regime in Syria.

Author: pithom

An atheist with an interest in the history of the ancient Near East. Author of the Against Jebel al-Lawz Wordpress blog.

Read the Comment Policy Before Commenting.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s