미국의 대통령 선출 제도는 쉽게 이해가 되지 않는 복잡한 절차를 밟아서, 긴 1년반 동안의 막을 내리는 것이다. 이제도가 아직까지는 최고의 대통령 선출방식이라고 많은 전문가들이 얘기를 하지만, 국민들이 투표를 하는것은 대통령을 뽑는것이 아니라 각주의 인구비례에 따라Electoral College(선거인단)을 뽑는것이다. 그선거인단이 다시 대통령선출을 위한 투표를 하는 것이다. "이중간접선거"라고 명칭을 달아야 하나? 잘못 실수를 막을수 있게하는 안전 장치인것을 분명하나, 유권자들의 투표가 직접적으로 힘을 나타내는것을 그한계가 있는것 같다.
이번 선거까지, 미국이 이제도를 도입한 이래 4번째의 사건, 즉 전체 투표자득표수에서는 승리했지만, 선거인단 숫자를 계산하는 투표방식에서 패배하여, 대통령에 당선 못된 경우가 발생할 것이다. 그내용을 아래의 심층기사에서 알아보자.
위의 사진중, 첫번째는 Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George Bush, 그리고 이번의 승자인 Donald Trump. 이분들은 유권자투표에서 패배했으나, 선거인단투표수에서 승리하여 대통령이 된 인물 들이다.
이번 선거까지, 미국이 이제도를 도입한 이래 4번째의 사건, 즉 전체 투표자득표수에서는 승리했지만, 선거인단 숫자를 계산하는 투표방식에서 패배하여, 대통령에 당선 못된 경우가 발생할 것이다. 그내용을 아래의 심층기사에서 알아보자.
미국 선거역사상 4번째로, 선거인단(Electoral College) 득표에서 승리했기 때문에, 반대당후보보다 적은 유권자투표수를 얻었는데도, 대통령으로 당선된 사람들이다.
1787년에 제정된 헌법에 따라 각주별로( Independent state) 배분되여있는 선거인단 투표에서 다수를 차지한 후보가 승리하는 방식에 따라, 이번선거에서 Donald Trump가 대통령으로 당선된것이다.
Hillary Clinton은 전국유권자투표에서 200,000이상을 더 획득했으나, 승자가 못돼고 2등으로 끝마친 셈이다. 민주당으로서는 최근들어 또다시선거패배의 고통을 맞은셈이다.
Hillary Clinton은 전국유권자투표에서 200,000이상을 더 획득했으나, 승자가 못돼고 2등으로 끝마친 셈이다. 민주당으로서는 최근들어 또다시선거패배의 고통을 맞은셈이다.
지난 2000년도 선거에서 당시 부통령이었던 민주당 후보 Al Gore는 당시 경쟁자였던, 공화당후보인 텍사스주지사였던 George Bush보다 539,000표를 더 얻었으나, Bush가 대통령으로 당선됐었다. 왜냐면 플로리다주에서 엉뚱하게도, 미국대법원이 재검표를 못하도록 판결을 내린 덕택에 간발의 차이로 유권자투표에서 승리를 하게 됨으로써, Electoral College 득표에서 Al Gore를 앞섰기 때문이었다.
그로부터 4년후 이선거 방식때문에 반대당으로 기울어질뻔 했었다. 당시 대통령이었던 Bush는 민주당후보가 얻은 표보다 전국적으로 3백만표를 더 얻었었으나, Ohio주에서 John Kerry가 60,000표만 더 얻었었다면 그는 백악관을 차지할뻔 했었다.
그러한 이변은 1888년 이후로는 발생한적이 없었다. 당시 Benjamin Harrison후보가 대통령으로 선출됐었지만, 반대당후보였던 Grover Cleveland가 유권자투표에서는 승리를 했었다.
그러한 이변은 1888년 이후로는 발생한적이 없었다. 당시 Benjamin Harrison후보가 대통령으로 선출됐었지만, 반대당후보였던 Grover Cleveland가 유권자투표에서는 승리를 했었다.
1876년에는 Samuel Tilden후보가 Rutherford Hayes보다 유권자투표에서 승리 했었으나, Compromise of 1877년 합의에 따라, 복잡한 정치적 딜 때문에 결과적으로 패배하고 말았었다.
독특한 선거방식은, 자유의 몸이 되여 투표권이 있었던 사람보다,노예들을 더 많이 확보하고 있었던 남부의 여러주가 포함된, 각주들과의 합의에서 만들어진 헌법의 산물이었다.
It was also an era when ordinary people living far from the handful of cities could not be expected to know leading figures of the time who could serve as the chief executive.
“So they decided to delegate the decision to wise elites. The framers thought they would be a check on demagogues and the popular passions,” said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. “It seems antiquated, and it didn’t work as they anticipated.”
At first, the delegates to the 1787 convention considered having the elected members of Congress choose the president, similar to the way the British prime minister is selected by members of the parliament. But James Madison believed in separating power whenever possible, and he argued for electors who would be independent of Congress.
The Constitution does not use the phrase “electoral college.” Rather, it says “Each state shall appoint … a number of electors” that is equal to its representation in Congress, including its two senators.
However, by the early 1800s, the state electors were voting as a block in favor of the presidential candidate who won the most votes in their state. So the electoral college did no debating or deliberating, but instead became a mechanism for registering the state’s decision.
Critics of the electoral college have pointed out how slavery played a role in its creation. Southern delegates to the Philadelphia convention feared their states could be dominated by the new federal government because the Northern states had more people and more voters. So they fashioned a compromise that divided power based on counting the “whole number of free persons” in the states as well as “three-fifths of all other persons.” Thanks to this infamous deal, the Southern states were bolstered and given more seats in the House of Representatives as well as more “electors” who selected the president.
Pennsylvania may have had more free people and voters than Virginia, but the largest Southern state had more electors. “It’s no accident that for 32 of the first 36 years, the presidency was occupied by a white, slave-holding Virginian,” said Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, a longtime critic of the electoral college.
While the Civil War ended slavery and the “three-fifths” deal, the electoral system survived as the method for choosing the president, in part because the Constitution is very hard to change. Amendments need the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states.
Supporters of the electoral system say it encourages candidates to campaign across many states, rather than focusing on the huge states, such as California or Texas.
But in practice, presidential candidates tend to ignore states where one party already dominates, such as California, Texas and New York, and instead focus on the half-dozen states that are deemed to be “battlegrounds” where either party might prevail.
One possibility for changing the system is the National Popular Vote bill. The Constitution says states may decide on their own how to allocate their electoral votes, and a reform group is calling for states to agree by law to allocate all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. So far, 11 states, including California, New York and Illinois, have said they would support this proposal. But the idea has won little traction in the Republican-leaning red states.
Still, many critics have insisted the electoral system violates the basic principle that it is voters who elect the president, so the winner should be the candidate who wins the most votes.
One such critic in November 2012 was Donald Trump, who tweeted: “The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.”At first, the delegates to the 1787 convention considered having the elected members of Congress choose the president, similar to the way the British prime minister is selected by members of the parliament. But James Madison believed in separating power whenever possible, and he argued for electors who would be independent of Congress.
The Constitution does not use the phrase “electoral college.” Rather, it says “Each state shall appoint … a number of electors” that is equal to its representation in Congress, including its two senators.
However, by the early 1800s, the state electors were voting as a block in favor of the presidential candidate who won the most votes in their state. So the electoral college did no debating or deliberating, but instead became a mechanism for registering the state’s decision.
Critics of the electoral college have pointed out how slavery played a role in its creation. Southern delegates to the Philadelphia convention feared their states could be dominated by the new federal government because the Northern states had more people and more voters. So they fashioned a compromise that divided power based on counting the “whole number of free persons” in the states as well as “three-fifths of all other persons.” Thanks to this infamous deal, the Southern states were bolstered and given more seats in the House of Representatives as well as more “electors” who selected the president.
Pennsylvania may have had more free people and voters than Virginia, but the largest Southern state had more electors. “It’s no accident that for 32 of the first 36 years, the presidency was occupied by a white, slave-holding Virginian,” said Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, a longtime critic of the electoral college.
While the Civil War ended slavery and the “three-fifths” deal, the electoral system survived as the method for choosing the president, in part because the Constitution is very hard to change. Amendments need the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states.
Supporters of the electoral system say it encourages candidates to campaign across many states, rather than focusing on the huge states, such as California or Texas.
But in practice, presidential candidates tend to ignore states where one party already dominates, such as California, Texas and New York, and instead focus on the half-dozen states that are deemed to be “battlegrounds” where either party might prevail.
One possibility for changing the system is the National Popular Vote bill. The Constitution says states may decide on their own how to allocate their electoral votes, and a reform group is calling for states to agree by law to allocate all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. So far, 11 states, including California, New York and Illinois, have said they would support this proposal. But the idea has won little traction in the Republican-leaning red states.
Still, many critics have insisted the electoral system violates the basic principle that it is voters who elect the president, so the winner should be the candidate who wins the most votes.
One such critic in November 2012 was Donald Trump, who tweeted: “The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-electoral-college-history--20161111-story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment