The world still marvels at the election result for the US Presidency, which ended with the unexpected win by Donald Trump, against the predictions of practically everyone, including independent polling organisations, apart from somw within his own camp.
In Australia, this person enjoys next to no support from those that usually identify themselves with the major parties - Labor, the Liberal/National coalition, still less the Greens. A clear exception was the delight of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, some of whose policies are quite similar to those of Trump.
Naturally, the popularity that counts for Americans is that of its own citizens, and at the time this article was being written (16th November), the vote count for Trump was 60.3 million, with 61.0 million voting for Hillary Clinton.
Isn't this situation strange, that he who wins less votes wins. This is the result of the American Electoral College system, originally thought by the fathers of the nation to avoid the situation where a large state imposes its will on another.
The first time I had encountered a similar situation was in Malta, in the 1981 national election, where the Nationalist Party (NP) had got 50.9% of first count votes, but less members in parliament than the Malta Labour Party (MLP). The country had been quite shocked with what had happened, so much so that the day after the election, the hooting of car horns and provocative taunts by the winning supporters had already ceased, whereas usually these take another 2-3 days, whoever wins.
That result, termed perverse, was possible due to so-called 'wasted votes', where if say a party elects, say, 3 candidates from a district as it would have obtained more than 3 quotas from that district but less than 4, the 'extra' votes are 'wasted' for that party, even if distrubuted to other candidates according to preferences. In that instance, the NP had more wasted votes than the MLP.
The NP says that then the MLP had carried out gerrymandering (malicious district manipulation). The MLP says the NP did the same in 1996 when Alfred Sant won the election but only had a single seat majority, with the consequences we all know. In fact, I think both are right. The MLP fixed the system up to a point, in collaboration with the NP by an amendment to the constitution, which needs a vote of at least two thirds of the members of parliament.
The American system is more complex than this, as the votes for the presidency don't go directly to the candidate, but go to members of the so-called Electoral College, which eventually elects the President. Each state is given a different number of members that need to be elected in this Electoral College, and this number is not proportional to the population of the state.
This leads to strange results, like the fact that a vote in Wyoming is worth three votes in California. Perversity on steroids!
After the initial shock, I had to pinch myself to accept that I'll soon start hearing about President Trump, and my thoughts quickly turned to the measures that Trump had declared he wanted to implement.
Of great interest for me is his desire to tear up last year's Paris Agreement on climate change, a United Nations agreement that has taken many years to get countries together, especially the biggest emitters, that is the United States and China. Currently, government delegations are in Morocco to review what elswe needs to be done to achieve the outcomes that had been agreed in Paris. I can imagine delegates are wasting more time scratching their heads and wondering whether all their work is going up in smoke (excuse the pun), and if this last chance to save our planet is about to be lost.
Another declaration what the imposition of a 45% tariff on importation from China, in order to protect American industry. This declaration refers to fundamental principles that we might comment on another time, however today I'll just say that this step would likely lead to retaliation by China. Who knows, perhaps China will decide to introduce a tariff on importantion into China from countries that dont' implement the Paris agreement, and present this as a moral step to aid the environment!
Readers are facing a few interesting years ahead of us, whether we live in the US or not. I just hope we won't all end up burnt (or drown under rising sea levels)!
-------------------
Id-dinja għadha mmeraviljata kif l-elezzjoni għall-Presidenza fl-Istati Uniti spiċċat bir-rebħa, mhux mistennija, minn Donald Trump, kontra l-previżjonijiet tista' tgħid kollha, anke ta' organizzazzjonijiet ta' stħarriġ indipendenti, minbarra ta' wħud mill-kampanja elettorali tiegħu.
Fl-Awstralja, dan il-bniedem jidher li jgawdi ftit li xejn popolarità minn dawk li normalment jidentifikaw ruħhom mal-partiti l-kbar, il-Laburisti u l-Liberali/Nazzjonali, u wisq inqas mill-Ħodor. Eċċezzjoni evidenti kien il-pjaċir ta' One Nation ta' Pauline Hanson, li għandha politika pjuttost simili għal dik ta' Trump.
Naturalment, il-popolarità li tgħodd għall-Amerikani hija dik taċ-ċittadini tagħhom stess, u fil-ħin li kien qed jinkiteb dan l-artiklu (16 ta' Novembru), l-għadd ta' nies li vvutaw għal Trump kien 60.3 miljun, filwaqt li 61.0 miljun kienu vvutaw għal Hillary Clinton.
Xi stramberija din hux, li jista' jirbaħ min kellu inqas voti. Riżultat tas-sistema Amerikana ta' kulleġġi elettorali, oriġinarjament maħsuba mill-missirijiet tan-nazzjoni Amerikan, sabiex l-ebda stat għax ikbar minn ieħor ma jkun jista' jimponi r-rieda tiegħu fuq ieħor.
L-ewwel darba li kont esperjenzajt xi ħaġa simili kienet f'Malta, fl-elezzjoni nazzjonali tal-1981, fejn il-Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) kien ġab 50.9% tal-voti fl-ewwel għadd, imma inqas membri fil-parlament mill-Partit Laburista (PL, dakinhar MLP). Il-pajjiż kien pjuttost ixxukkjat b'dak li kien ġara, tant li niftakar li l-għada tal-elezzjoni il-ħornijiet tal-karozzi tal-partitarji li kienu rebħu, flimkien mal-għajjat ta' “oħorġu ja mdejqin”, kienu diġà kważi waqfu għal kollox, meta s-soltu jdumu sejrin xi jumejn jew tlieta, ikun rebaħ min rebaħ.
Dak ir-riżultat, imsejjaħ pervers, kien possibbli minħabba dawk li huma msejħin 'voti moħlija', fejn jekk partit tella', ngħidu aħna, 3 kandidati minn distrett, għax ikun ġab iktar minn tliet kwoti minn dak id-distrett imma inqas minn erbgħa, dawk il-voti 'żejda' jiġu 'moħlija' għal dak il-partit, għalkemm jitqassmu skont il-preferenzi lil kandidati oħra. Dakinhar, il-PN kellu voti moħlija iktar mill-MLP.
Il-PN jgħidu li dakinhar il-MLP għamlu gerrymandering (logħob makakk bid-distretti). Il-MLP jgħidu li l-PN għamlu l-istess fl-1996 meta kien tela' Alfred Sant imma kellu biss siġġu wieħed maġġoranza bil-konsegwenzi li lkoll nafu. Fil-fatt, naħseb li t-tnejn għandhom raġun. Il-PL fil-gvern irranġa s-sistema sa' ċertu punt, b'kollaborazzjoni mal-PN b'emendi fil-Kostituzzjoni, li għandha bżonn vot ta' mill-inqas żewġ terzi fil-parlament.
Is-sistema Amerikana hija iktar ikkumplikata minn hekk, għax il-voti għall-presidenza ma jmorrux direttament għal kandidat, imma jmorru għall membri tal-hekk imsejjaħ Kulleġġ Elettorali, li eventwalment jeleġġi l-President. Kull stat huwa mogħti numru differenti ta' membri li jridu jitilgħu f'dan il-Kulleġġ Elettorali, u dan in-numru mhux proporzjonali għall-popolazzjoni ta' dak l-istat.
Dan iwassal għal stramberiji bħall-fatt li vot fi stat bħal Wyoming jiswa daqs tliet voti f'California. Perversità bl-isteroids!
Wara x-xokk inizjali, kelli noqros lili nnifsi biex inniżżilha li dalwaqt se nibda nisma' bil-President Trump, u malajr il-ħsieb darli għall-miżuri li Trump stqarr li ried iwettaq.
Għalija ta' interess kbir kienet ir-rieda tiegħu li jitqatta' l-ftehim ta' Pariġi tas-sena l-oħra għall-kontroll tat-tibdil tal-klima, ftehim tal-Ġnus Magħquda li kien ilu ħafna snin biex iġib lill-pajjiżi biex jaslu għalih, speċjalment l-ikbar pajjiżi li jagħmlu dan it-tniġġiż, jiġifieri l-Istati Uniti u ċ-Ċina fuq nett. Bħalissa d-delegazzjonijiet tal-gvernijiet qed jiltaqgħu fil-Marokk biex jirrevedu x'iktar hemm bżonn xi jsir biex jitwettqu l-miri li ġew miftiehma f'Pariġi. Nimmaġina d-delegati bħalissa iktar qed jaħlu ħin iħokku rashom u jaħsbu jekk xogħolhom kollu hux se jispiċċa suf, u jekk dan l-aħħar ċans li nsalvaw il-pjaneta tagħna hux se jintilef għal kollox.
Stqarrija oħra kienet li se jimponi tariffa ta' 45% fuq l-importazzjoni miċ-Ċina, biex tiġi protetta l-industrija Amerikana. Din l-istqarrija tirreferi għal prinċipji fundamentali li forsi nikkummentaw darb'oħra fuqhom, biss illum ngħid li pass bħal dan aktarx iwassal għal ritaljazzjoni miċ-Ċina. Min jaf, forsi ċ-Ċina tiddeċiedi li tintroduċi tariffa għall-importazzjoni ġoċ-Ċina minn pajjiżi li ma jwettqux fil-ftehim ta' Pariġi, u tista' tippreżenta dan il-pass bħala wieħed morali favur l-ambjent!
Żgur li għall-qarrejja ġejjin snin interessanti quddiemna, kemm jekk noqgħodu fl-Istati Uniti u kemm jekk le. Nispera biss li ma ninħarqux ilkoll (jew ngħerqu fil-baħar tiela')!
1http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-electoral-college-twitter-disaster-democracy-comments-us-election-2016-a7408836.html, retrieved 16/11/2016
1http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-electoral-college-twitter-disaster-democracy-comments-us-election-2016-a7408836.html, retrieved 16/11/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment