There are few people in the developed world who are unaware of the upcoming presidential elections in the United States on November 5. Less known is the fact that the United Kingdom went to the polls on July 4. France completed its election on July 7, but this is where the similarity ends.
In the US, the two main parties – Democratic and Republican – initially vote in primaries to choose their candidate for the presidential elections. Then it becomes more complicated. Later in this article, I shall compare the strict constraints placed on the election expenditure of each UK political party compared to the millions spent in the US.
Having regard for its size and the constituent states’ varying population numbers, the US Constitution has made the voting process as complicated as possible. Each of the 50 states that make up the union is able to determine its own electoral rules and voting system. Besides the election for the president every four years, residents of each state who are US citizens also vote for their delegates that make up the members of the House of Representatives. Every two years, one-third of senators who complete their six-year term are up for election by their local area.
The majorities in both houses of Congress need not be from the same party, and the president’s political affiliation is independent of both. On the face of it, the American system sounds perfectly democratic – until one looks closer. Apart from the various methods of voting by different electronic machines or manually, already difficult to count, the diverse method of counting can lead to errors and irregularities, as was alleged by the Trump team in 2020. Proof of identity is also not uniformly enforced.
But that’s not all that can give cause for concern when looking at US elections from the outside. It seems to be as much determined by money as it is about policy. Although under the Federal Election Campaign Act (of 1971) there are limits placed on contributions to a candidate’s campaign, they can be per individual or per candidate committee. But there are also the various political action committees (PACs and even super-PACs) that can collect limitless contributions, which they then distribute to their chosen party or candidate. One example is the Jewish lobbying group AIPAC. It’s an odd way to circumvent limits. Hence, the much publicized competition to accumulate the millions of dollars used to finance the campaign. It almost seems that money can determine the election result. By the way, US election expenditure also constitutes a major source of income for the media organizations.
In the UK, election spending is strictly controlled and not only limited to within a certain period, but it is also calculated on the number of seats a party is contesting in any particular area, called a constituency. Where a party has no candidates contesting, it also has no allowance.
When casting the vote for a US presidential candidate, one is not actually voting for the president. One votes for a group of local “electors” who form the electoral college. Each state’s number of electors is based on its representation in Congress. For instance, Georgia has two senators and 14 representatives, hence they have 16 electors in the college. The purpose of this additional “fence” is to spread the power of electing the president across all 50 states, ensuring that the more populated states do not overpower the smaller states when choosing a national leader. In 48 states, members of the electoral college vote unanimously for the winner of the state’s popular vote. But in Maine and Nebraska, they split the vote proportionately. The presidential candidate who reaches the magical number of 270 is declared president of the US.
In the UK, voting is relatively simple. The monarch is the permanent titular head of the Commonwealth, and the prime minister is not elected directly by the citizens. Four countries – England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – form 650 parliamentary constituencies. On the varying ballot papers of every constituency there are several candidates, each representing one political party. This may vary in each area. Every citizen has just one vote. Registered voters place a mark next to the name of just one person from among the candidates. The one who receives the most votes (“first past the post”) is declared to be the local member of parliament to represent the interests of his or her constituency in the House of Commons. The political party that achieves the largest number of members forms the government, and its leader is appointed prime minister by the monarch.
This voting system is simple and fraud-proof. Each registered citizen receives a voting card for his or her local municipality and presents this together with proof of identity at the voting station to receive a ballot paper. Completed with just one cross, it is placed into the ballot box.
Members of the Upper House – the lords – are either there by heredity or are recommended by the prime minister for services to the state.
The result of the recent election in the UK was a landslide for the center-left Labour Party after 14 years of Conservative rule. The new prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, a former head of Public Prosecutions, claims to have cleansed the Labour Party of the institutionalized antisemitism that had infested it in recent years. He thus regained the traditional Jewish vote which had deserted it.
It’s too early to judge Starmer’s final policies on Israel. He was strongly opposed to the vote in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to categorically declare all areas across the Green Line as illegally occupied by Israel. However, he is reported to have spoken with the leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and told him that recognition of the State of Palestine is part of the Middle East peace process is an “undeniable right.”
Following its election result, France slipped into political uncertainty, although the predicted outright win for Marine Le Pen’s ultra-right-wing party did not materialize. The election created three political blocs, with the largest being he left-wing antisemitic alliance leading the pack and demanding the right to form a government. President Emmanuel Macron postponed his decision and also the discussion about the composition of the probable coalition government until after the 2024 Olympic Games hosted by Paris.
In the US, because President Joe Biden decided not to stand for reelection (or perhaps he was pushed), the Democrat convention will have chosen its presumptive nominee for president by August 22. In the absence of other candidates, this might bring the current vice president, Kamala Harris, to stand against former president Donald Trump on November 5. Harris recently chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her VP running mate over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. More forceful than Biden, Harris believes that peace in the Middle East can be achieved by Israel’s submission to the demands of Hamas and by the reduction of Israel to half its size in favor of establishing a Palestinian state in the biblical heartland of our country. Unfortunately, like many of her ilk, her understanding of Middle East history is derived from The New York Times and The Washington Post.
On the other hand, if Trump’s past performance is a measure of his future policy toward Israel – even if moderated by recent events – let us hope that he will be successful on November 5. Whoever wins the presidency will have to deal with the axis of evil – China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Can you imagine Harris negotiating with Xi Jinping, Putin, Kim Yong Un or Tehran’s dictators? She would emerge as mincemeat, with the US at their mercy and Israel in peril.
Israel needs unity
Israel’s domestic policy presents a dim outlook. We are now in the 11th month of war on several fronts, and many in our country have not yet realized that the first and foremost winning strategy is absolute unity of government and population. Sadly, on that score we fail miserably. The main agenda item for the left-wing demonstrators is the release of the hostages at any price. While there is not a person in the country who does not consider their release of the utmost priority, the motivation of the prostraters and their inflammatory rhetoric is fueled by the total ignorance of the predictable consequences. They are a blind mass following extremist agitators who use them as tools for their anarchist agenda, and confuse honest decency with disloyal subversion. It is the same mindset that informs the pro-Palestinian marchers in the US and Europe, whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “Iran’s useful idiots.”
Israel has a choice: Either fight united and win, or continue to exist with a shtetl mentality under constant threat. ■
Walter Bingham, now in his 101st year of life, holds Guinness World Records as the world’s oldest working journalist and oldest active radio host.