US Election Administration: An Outlier Among Democracies

No items found.
March 16, 2020
Edward McMahon

Written by Edward R. McMahon, ERN Board Vice Chair. Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash.

A wide variety of election management models, all of which are supposed to ensure legitimate elections, exist throughout the democratic world.  It is normal that countries will choose different ways of conducting elections, as countries are in a sense, like snowflakes  no two ones are identical.  History, demography, culture, geography and a range of other factors clearly contribute to variations in how elections are administered.  This is true more broadly regarding differences in how countries democratic institutions are structured; for example, some countries have presidential systems while others have chosen parliamentary forms of government.

In many respects, however, the way in which elections are administered in the United States represents an outlier compared to other leading democratic nations.  The United States differs in several important ways from almost all of its democratic peers. These variations carry with them serious implications, which can be identified through comparative analysis presented here.

We have chosen several of the most salient features of election administration for six other countries, all of which are ranked as Free or its equivalent by most current existing models assessing global levels of democracy: Canada, UK, France, Australia, India, and Germany.  Apart from all being democracies, these countries were selected because: the US draws much of its political culture and tradition from the UK; Canada, Australia, Germany and India all have federal systems somewhat similar to that of the US; India is the largest democracy in the world; and France has its own long democratic tradition.

There are, of course, some significant differences between many of these countries in what elections are administered and for which offices.  For example, Canada, Australia and India are parliamentary democracies, while the U.S., France and Germany to varying extents all center more power in the executive branch.  In addition, the national election authorities are responsible for a range of elections, depending upon the country.

We have, however, identified for comparison three common issues which are central to question of how Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) are constituted and managed.  These include the following:

  • The nature of the EMB oversight;
  • the relationship between EMBs and the government, especially the method of appointment of EMB leadership; and
  • EMB levels of centralization/decentralization.

These issues are important especially as a growing and evolving body of public international law related to elections and electoral and participatory rights underpins the concept that there are commonly accepted international norms and standards for genuine elections.  For example, Article 21 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the bedrock of international human rights jurisprudence, highlights the role of elections in ensuring citizens ability to participate in the public affairs of their country. This is further stated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international and regional treaties and instruments.

Read on...