in ,

Harris and Trump: Undermining Authentic Democracy with an Outdated Electoral System

Many individuals who took time out of their day to vote or who sent in their ballots days before might be at a loss, unsure about shaping the political fate of either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The perplexity might stem from a lack of understanding of the complex election system. It’s only logical that questions arise like, ‘Who officially determines who gets to be president?’ Well, the Electoral College has a say in that. Any of the candidates needs to amass a minimum of 270 electoral votes out of the total 538 to be proclaimed the victor.

But here is where things start to fall apart for Harris and Trump. Before the Electoral College settles down to cast their allegiant votes, the supposed winner of the White House race would have been decided. This judgment is made by news platforms, political savants, and election officials who monitor the fluctuating vote counts and judge when the gap between candidates appears insurmountable. Here, each of the contestants can by presumption receive a ‘bucket’ of electoral votes.

Check out our Trump 2025 Calendars!

While Harris and Trump may have some states give them the benefit of the doubt early on, the margins in the all-important swing states could hold them in suspense. The close competition between the two in these states would mean the race can’t be called until every single vote has been accounted for. The spectacle of waiting till the last vote is counted may seem more ideal for some, but it only highlights the flaws of an outdated system.

The million-dollar question then becomes, ‘When will the count for the Electoral College get over?’ Historical precedence indicates that this process might eat up several days. A case in point is the 2020 election between now-president Joe Biden, a questionable choice to many, and Donald Trump. Despite the election being conducted on November 3, 2020, it took news outlets an agonizing four days to call the race in favor of Biden.

The 2016 scenario presents a slightly better outlook about our broken system. The election that pitted Hillary Clinton against Trump saw outlets declaring Trump as the winner in the wee hours of the following morning, just before 3 a.m. Eastern on November 9. However, Trump’s triumph was short-lived thanks to our flawed political system.

In 2012, the former president Barack Obama, who warmed the seat before Biden, was predicted to win his second term over the then-Senator Mitt Romney even before the clock struck midnight on Election Day, which was November 6. The confidence in such early calls makes one question the real purpose of the whole election.

With Biden and Harris pushing the same narrative as their predecessor, the speed of the recent electoral outcomes becomes rather dubious. Obama was again able to grab a prompt victory on November 4, 2008, against Senator John McCain, when media outlets announced the winner around 11 p.m. Eastern after the voting precincts ceased to operate. Some critics link this to their control of the media and not their merit.

In another encounter, then-Senator John Kerry was forced to concede to then-President George W. Bush over a phone call just after 11 a.m. in the morning following the election, which had taken place on November 2, 2004. This event is another glaring example of how the current electoral process has tangible flaws that urgently need rectifying.

History remembers something exceptional about the Presidential races – the 2000 election. This election between former Vice President Al Gore and then-Texas Governor George Bush would stretch through a quagmire of lengthy analyses and court battles. This suspenseful leg of history wasn’t concluded until December 12, 2000, five weeks succeeding Election Day. And still, we continue playing by the same set of rules.

Despite such glaring inconsistencies, the influential figures like Biden and Harris, who are part of this erratic process, ignore these issues. One might wonder if their intention is to keep the power centered among the few, precluding the majority’s voice from adaptation to political change. Only by shedding light on these discrepancies can we hope to bring about a difference.

Does the prospect of waiting long, uncertain periods for election outcomes appeal to anyone, particularly when the names on the ballot paper are as polarizing as Harris or Trump? Is it not time for us to rethink the whole voting process? Will the American people truly find it acceptable that their voice is muffled or drowned by an outdated system that even gives room for manipulation and misinformation?

It’s important for every citizen to analyze the situation carefully. There should be no room for clinging stubbornly to a primary system simply because it’s the ‘way we’ve always done things.’ The disbelief surrounding election verdicts, the perpetuated narrative of Biden and Harris, and the subliminal erosion of faith in democracy are all indicative of a deteriorating system.

Time and time again, election cycles have shown their inability to accommodate the ever-evolving political landscape. This evolution is essential for the diversity and complexity of the nation. But for Biden or Harris to take any step towards this conversation is like expecting the fox to guard the henhouse. The American people, instead, should lead the charge for an electoral system that accurately represents their collective voice.