Importing Democracy: Can Lessons Learned from Germany, India, and Australia Help Reform the American Electoral System?

Abstract

America's system is extremely decentralized and highly partisan, leaving much room for improvement.9 The political landscape is undoubtedly molded by the electoral system in place. America's system allows for "Loser Presidents" and "hanging" chads." This Comment seeks to address pitfalls like these by presenting changes-fully in line with the constitutional mandate in Article II, Section 1-- to the current electoral system in an effort to positively shape our democratic landscape.

Part II explores the history of Article II, Section 1, beginning with the Constitutional Convention and the Framers' debates over what type of electoral system would best serve America, and ends with a discussion of the 1800 and 1876 elections and the changes to the system that arose from these controversial elections. Part III dissects the various Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Framers' intent when they created Article II, Section 1. Part IV provides an overview of recent events, including the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections, specifically analyzing the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and how this new piece of legislation fits into the overall history of Article II, Section 1. Part V looks to international law as a possible answer to some of America's election problems by focusing on Germany, India, and Australia and how the electoral systems of these nations have shaped the way reformers approach the task of redefining the manner in which a country elects its officials. Part VI brings together the history of the Electoral College and the innovations from Germany, India, and Australia, and proposes three solutions for America's system-creating a non-partisan electoral commission, incorporating a mixed electoral system into the current system, and ensuring national standards for election administration. Finally, Part VII concludes this Comment.