As the Kenyan Gen Z protests captivate the global spotlight, overshadowing even the impending US elections, we can’t help but wonder: what if our political landscape mirrored the systems across the pond?
The cries of the country’s youth echo far and wide, demanding a complete overhaul of a government they deem extravagant, insensitive, and downright corrupt. And with a potential general election looming in just three months should the current regime go home, the stage is being set for a digital-driven political transformation unlike any we’ve seen before.
But what would that look like, exactly? Would we embrace the voting and election protocols that have shaped American politics for centuries? Or would we forge a bold, new digital-first path, leveraging technology to redefine civic engagement? Will the adoption of the system help us with having better leaders in place?
I think that painting a vivid picture of what these US systems are is necessary before you answer me.
In the US, the president ( the presidency) is not elected directly by the popular vote. Instead, the president is elected through the Electoral College system, a compromise reached by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, with each state allocated a number of electors equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. The Congress is in the US while the Parliament -the Senate and the national assembly are, in Kenya.
In 48 states and Washington, D.C., the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state receives all of the state’s electoral votes (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska, which use a proportional system).
To win the presidency, a candidate needs to secure at least 270 electoral votes, which represents a simple majority. This means that a candidate can win the popular vote nationwide but still lose the election if they do not reach the 270-electoral-vote threshold. You can read more on this and the Swing States here: https://www.usvotefoundation.org/us-presidential-elections-explained-what-are-swing-states-and-why-do-they-matter.
So in essence Kenya would be divided into distinct states or regions, similar to the US states. Each Kenyan ” state” would be allocated a certain number of “electoral votes” based on factors like population size or representation in the national parliament.
For example, the 47 Kenyan counties could serve as the state-level units, with each county allocated several electoral votes proportional to its representation in the National Assembly (MPs) and the Senate. This would create a system where certain counties emerge as “swing counties” – areas that do not have a strong, consistent partisan lean and could reasonably be won by either the leading political parties.
Just as in the US, these Kenyan swing counties would become the key battlegrounds, with political parties and candidates focusing their campaign efforts and resources there to try and sway the narrow margin of undecided voters. Meanwhile, counties that consistently lean towards one party or the other would become “safe counties” that the candidates may largely ignore.
The winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes in each county could mean that even a narrow popular vote victory in a swing county would hand all of its electoral votes to one candidate. This would further amplify the importance of these battleground areas, as a candidate could potentially win the presidency by securing victories in just a handful of crucial swing counties.
Additionally, the dynamics at the county level could also play out in the elections for Members of County Assemblies (MCAs) and Senators. Swing counties would become crucial battlegrounds for both local and national-level seats, with the parties vying for control of the levers of power at multiple levels of government.
Let me bring this closer home. Under this hypothetical system, the 47 Kenyan counties would serve as the state-level units, each with a certain number of “electoral votes” based on their representation in Parliament- As I have already mentioned.
This would create a dynamic where a handful of swing counties, such as Nakuru, Kiambu, or Mombasa, would become the key battlegrounds for both presidential and down-ballot races.
Whether a US-style swing county system in Kenya would help in having the “right” leaders in place is a complex issue that would depend on several factors.
On the one hand, such a system could potentially increase the focus on swing counties and force candidates to address the concerns of a broader cross-section of the electorate, rather than just relying on their traditional strongholds. This might incentivize candidates to put forth more centrist, consensus-building platforms that appeal to a wider range of voters.
Additionally, the heightened importance of swing counties could empower previously marginalized regions and communities to play a more pivotal role in determining election outcomes. This could inject new voices and perspectives into the political process.
However, there are also significant risks and potential downsides to consider:
- Distortion of the popular will: As mentioned earlier, the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency without the national popular vote could undermine public confidence in the system and lead to perceptions of the “wrong” leader being in power.
- Increased polarization: The intense focus on swing counties might exacerbate regional and ethnic divides, as parties and candidates cater to the narrow interests of these battleground areas at the expense of more cohesive, nationwide agendas.
- Potential for manipulation: The ability to influence the boundaries and allocation of electoral votes in swing counties could open the door to gerrymandering and other forms of electoral engineering, further undermining the integrity of the process.
- Neglect of non-swing areas: Voters in counties that are seen as partisan strongholds might feel that their voices are not being heard, as candidates focus their efforts elsewhere.
Ultimately, whether this hypothetical system would help install the “right” leaders in Kenya would depend on how it is designed, implemented, and maintained over time. Safeguards against manipulation, a commitment to democratic norms, and a robust system of checks and balances would be crucial.
Additionally, the concept of the “right” leaders is inherently subjective and would depend on one’s political views and values. A system that empowers swing voters might produce different outcomes than one that prioritizes a more even distribution of power across regions and communities.
In summary, a US-style swing county system in Kenya has the potential to shape the political landscape in complex ways, with both potential benefits and risks. Careful consideration and public dialogue would be essential in determining whether such a reform would serve the long-term interests of Kenyan democracy and governance.
+ There are no comments
Add yours