US elections would be irregular by standards of India, other nations

NEW YORK: The way the US conducts its presidential election would be considered irregular — and even illegal — in India and many countries.

Elections are conducted by state and local agencies with different formats, rules and even machines in the US, while the Federal Election Commission is concerned mostly with regulating the political contributions, in money or in kind, that are governed by complicated regulations.

Some US politicians and the media denigrate the election process in other countries, especially developing nations, but the US system is also flawed.

The most glaring questionable aspect of elections here is allowing open appeal to religion, and major parties openly do communal propaganda and have religious units.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, for example, issued a separate manifesto for Muslims, which turned Kashmir from an international affairs issue into a communal one. (But there wasn't one for Hindus.)

President Donald Trump's son Eric visited a Hindu temple in Atlanta this year and in Florida in 2016.

The two candidates' official campaigns have religious units like Hindu Voices for Trump and Hindu Americans for Biden.

The voting process has been heavily politicised this year, reflecting the national polarisation, and some of its problems have been exacerbated by the coronavirus crisis. Democrats pushed for widespread use of postal votes — officially known as absentee ballots — and early in-person voting because some people fearing crowds due to the COVID-19 pandemic may not want to go to the polling booths on November 3.

As of Friday, about 85 million citizens had voted. Some states like California — the most populous in the country — and New Jersey have sent out postal ballots to all the registered voters.

President Donald Trump has questioned the integrity of the election process with so many postal ballots. But both his Democratic rival Joe Biden and most of the mainstream media have brushed aside criticism of the system and accused him of undermining democracy by raising doubts about the electoral process.

There are, however, several valid reasons to wonder about the integrity of the system.

Compared to India, the use of money is probably much more tightly controlled in US elections — a bright spot — facilitated by the legal provisions to raise funds circumscribed by various regulations monitored strictly by the Federal Election Commission.

The father of the Indian American member of the House of Representatives Ami Bera received a year's prison sentence for contributing about $270,000 to his campaign, while the hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal who was convicted of illegally funnelling $180,000 to Hillary Clinton's senate campaign was not sent to prison.

In a way, the provisions for making open legal contributions to campaigns and candidates also makes it possible to buy influence legally — but it can be tracked.

There is, however, one exception to the strict laws. On election day, there is a practice of giving out what is called "walking money" or "street money" to candidates' canvassers or local party officials for expenses like transporting voters. Full accounting for these funds is not required and sometimes the money is given out at a very low level to get votes. (IANS)

Also Watch: River Cruise launched at Biswanath Ghat

Also Read: Kamala Harris enters peak mudslinging season