春雨直播app

In the 2024 United States presidential election held in November, Republican Party candidate and former President Donald J. Trump defeated Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party candidate and incumbent vice president, resulting in another four-year term for the returning president. Associate Professor Ayako Hiramatsu of the Center for Pacific and American Studies discusses the structure of the U.S. presidential election and some of the characteristics of the country’s two-party electoral system.

The Electoral College and the will of the people

── What left the biggest impression on you during the most recent U.S. general election?

I had been paying particular attention to how American society and media would respond to Donald Trump’s demagogic rhetoric. What we saw in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections repeated themselves in 2024 – namely, the news media paid most of their attention to Trump’s many eccentric and baseless statements. As a result, public conversations on important policy issues, covering both domestic matters and foreign relations, were largely absent.

During the presidential debate between him and Kamala Harris in September 2024, Trump made an outlandish remark that illegal immigrants were eating their neighbors’ pets in the city of Springfield, Ohio, which is home to many Haitian immigrants. Harris was stunned at Trump’s sudden non sequitur, and the moderator immediately commented that the rumor had no factual basis. However, what Trump said became the focus of news and political satire programs in the days that followed. For Springfield residents, this led to a barrage of criminal threats, including bomb threats, and utter chaos for the city.

Sensationalistic, unproven stories that were laced with xenophobia and fear dominated the election, and the American voters were not able to hear and respond to serious public debate on policies that affect their livelihood. That is what left the biggest impression on me this time. The reason that I begin with this point is because the United States Electoral College (the process by which the country selects its president) was originally established in order to prevent the election of a president by an electorate under the sway of temporary popularity or influence.

── Tell us about the origin of the Electoral College.

In 1787 and 1788, a series of 85 articles and essays that later came to be known collectively as the Federalist Papers appeared in newspapers. In these writings, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, among the nation’s Founding Fathers (who created its constitution), called for the ratification of the United States Constitution and the establishment of a federal government. They discussed many topics, including how Congress should be constituted and what powers the presidency should be granted. They also made some interesting observations on the very concepts of political power and human nature, such as the idea that people are, by nature, full of ambition and desire, which could potentially impinge on the freedoms and rights of others. They were concerned about how to form a republic that would best serve the common good for all, not solely the majority. In the process of selecting a president, they list “cabal,” “intrigue” and “corruption” as mortal enemies of the republic. They worried that a military leader could be elected and use force to intimidate the people, that a foreign power would intervene in the selection of the president, or that the masses could be easily swayed by a candidate who seeks popularity and temporary enthusiasm. Though the founders did not use the word “demagogue,” Trump would fit into one of the types of political leaders that they feared would send the republic on the path of decline.

To prevent such possibilities, the founders instituted a body called the Electoral College for the sole purpose of electing a president and vice president. The president would be elected by a group of people who were sensible, wise and capable of making decisions with long-term impact for the nation. The intention behind leaving the selection of the president to electors in each state, rather than the general population that was susceptible to public opinion, was to prevent the election of an individual unfit for the position.

However, the system by which members of the Electoral College were selected was revised in the early 19th century. Electing the president by way of the Electoral College, which was not directly based on the popular will, began to be considered undemocratic, and electors began to be chosen by popular vote in the states. Since then, the popular vote and the Electoral College have largely been aligned, but in the 21st century, we began to see problems. For example, in 2016, when Trump first ran as the Republican Party’s nominee for president, the majority of the popular vote and that of the Electoral College went to different candidates. (In 2000, Republican George W. Bush also won the election, but lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore.)

── How did American democracy as we know it take shape?

An important feature of the American political regime is that the basic structure of the Constitution has remained unchanged since it was originally devised at the end of the 18th century. The framers of the Constitution were highly skeptical of mass democracy, and they worried that the public would make shortsighted, irrational decisions and fall prey to herd mentality. This resulted in a constitution that was written to restrain the so-called tyranny of the majority. The document has many institutional arrangements, including the Electoral College as originally intended, that are designed to curb the popular will of the majority. The original general electorate was also limited to a handful of white, property-owning men at the time of the nation’s founding in 1789.

By the end of the 1820s, political participation had expanded to include most white men because of the relative ease for them in acquiring land for ownership. Soon, mass political parties were formed and the United States became the first country in the world to establish a modern democracy. On the other hand, we should remember that it was not until the 1960s that descendants of the formerly enslaved were able to vote and participate in politics. It took quite a long time for the idea to spread in the United States that any citizen should be able to participate in politics, and that multiracial, mass democracy is a good thing.

Ongoing polarization in a two-party system

── What are some of the characteristics of the two major political parties in the United States?

In addition to the fact that the same constitution has been in place since the nation’s founding, as I mentioned earlier, successful presidential candidates have all belonged to either the Democratic or Republican party since the 1850s. I suspect that the United States is the only country in the world where power in the national government, particularly at the level of the president, has alternated between the same two major parties.

Of course, this not to say that the platforms of the two parties have been static. The parties have both changed dramatically since the 1850s as a result of various external shocks, including wars, economic downturns and changes in the industrial structure. One major turning point occurred during the 1960s and early 1970s, when Black voters began to show support for the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. Historically, Black voters had supported the Republican Party, as this was the party of Abraham Lincoln who had emancipated the slaves during the Civil War (in 1863). Black voters began to shift to the Democratic Party, which supported greater regulation and intervention in the economy, markets and employment relations by strengthening the authority of the federal government. The Democratic President Lyndon Johnson supported the civil rights movement (of the 1950s and 1960s). At the same time, the Democratic Party had also been the dominant party in the southern United States, such as in the state of Georgia, where white supremacists resisted political participation by Black voters. Due to the federal government’s policies to end racial segregation and abolish racial discrimination in schools and workplaces, white supremacists began to drift toward the racially conservative wing of the Republican Party.

It was around this time that the political polarization of the United States began. The Democratic Party had built upon its base as a party of labor unions and started becoming the party of the racial minorities, feminists, environmentalists and others referred to as liberals. The Republican Party, meanwhile, attracted corporate executives, libertarians, cultural conservatives and evangelical Christians. The divide between the liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans further deepened in the 1980s and 1990s.

── How much has the polarization of the two parties deepened?

On cultural issues, such as rights for women, gender and sexual minorities, the separation of church and state, and gun control, there is a stark divide between the two parties. On the other hand, Democrats and Republicans have found common ground over some aspects of fiscal policies.

Around the 1970s, a “hidden welfare state” formed in the United States, wherein welfare assistance is distributed in the form of tax deductions. Tax credits were introduced so that taxpayers would receive deductions for income and child care expenses, thus reducing the amount of taxes that would otherwise have been collected by the government. These tax credits were inserted into the tax code as both parties became more critical of welfare benefits being provided directly to the so-called undeserving poor through government provisions. According to political scientist Christopher Howard, these tax credits amounted to social welfare provisions that were less recognizable to the recipients, and therefore more unequal in the redistributive functions, than other benefits directly handed out by the government, such as the food stamps and aid to low-income families. In this way, the government managed to create a growing welfare state that did not overtly pry into people’s private lives, including family and employment status, while rewarding workers and parents. Tax credits attract support from both Republicans, who do not like to raise taxes, and Democrats, who want to improve social welfare for middle-class families.

Thus, both parties can usually come to an agreement when tax deductions are involved. The Republican Party, at least before Trump came to power, used to take a conservative position, arguing for tax cuts and minimal government intervention in the economy. The Democrats, too, have moved toward the center of the political spectrum because they cannot win presidential elections with overly radical or liberal economic policies. This has been the case since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 and other successful Democratic presidential candidates (Barack Obama and Joe Biden) who have followed suit over the past three decades.

── What can we learn from the results of the 2024 presidential election?

Compared to the two previous elections in which Trump ran (in 2016 and 2020), the 2024 election saw an increase in support from Latino men. According to the data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Latinos (people of Latin American origin living in the U.S.) on average have lower median household incomes and lower rates of college enrollment and educational attainment than the overall population. Because many have benefited from Democratic policies in the past, Latinos were expected to come out once again in support of the Democratic Party. However, according to exit polls taken on Election Day, 55% of Latino men voted for Trump in 2024, in contrast to only 36% who did so in the 2020 election. In other words, Latino male voters shifted their support to the Republican Party by nearly 20 points.

One of the reasons why Democrats failed to attract the Latino male vote is their approach to the economy. Latino male voters supported Trump in the hope that his economic policies would be better than the ones implemented under the Democratic Biden administration. In this election, many people felt that their future would be brighter if they voted Republican, despite Trump’s various problems, including his xenophobic and exclusionary immigration policies.

Governance and resistance under the Trump administration

── Given all the discussion about cabinet appointments, what concerns do you have about the second Trump administration?

Although Republicans now have a congressional majority, they still lost seats from the previous term in the House of Representatives. If a few Republicans defect from the party line, a bill could fail to pass. Trump has also called for a drastic reform of federal bureaucratic personnel, known as “Schedule F,” in the hope of appointing loyalists to the cabinet, presidential staff and other positions. In practice, however, some people may not follow the president’s directives and policies, and they may even rebel against him. In particular, we are concerned that a situation may arise in which laws may not be carried out or enforced by bureaucrats who do not agree with the president’s policies.

An interesting case is the Alt National Park Service, an activist coalition that appeared in 2017 when Trump began his first term in office. In the United States, national parks have workers called park rangers who work for the Department of the Interior and manage the parks so that visitors can safely enjoy camping and hiking in the outdoors. The Alt National Park Service was originally founded by employees of the National Park Service in response to the first Trump administration’s attempts to restrict the use of their social media to disseminating publicity messages favorable to the administration. Meanwhile, the Alt National Park Service account shares pro-environmentalist content, including information about climate change, which contradicts the narratives that the Trump administration has been spreading. They have also voiced opposition to Trump’s policy of prioritizing the development of government land for commercial use rather than for the protection of the natural environment. The group had been dormant under the Biden administration, but with Trump’s re-election, they have started posting actively on social media again.

The existence of such a group means that the claims of official government organizations and alternative groups could contradict one another. If the federal government, under the leadership of the president, issues a directive that flies in the face of conventional practice, there is a good chance that federal employees who know the situation on the ground, such as the park rangers, will not comply.

Furthermore, the major changes that Trump is trying to make may be in direct conflict with the body of precedent rulings given by the courts. The Federalist Papers describe the courts as the weakest link in the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. This is because Congress can set the budget, thus wielding the power of the purse, and the president holds the sword as either the chief executive or the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces. But the judicial branch has neither of these powers. The authority of the courts comes into effect only when society accepts the rulings issued by the courts as just. We will need to see what kinds of rulings judges hand down, and how well, if at all, the courts are able to maintain the rule of law and to uphold the Constitution. I believe that democracy in the United States is going to be tested on a previously unknown scale.

Ayako Hiramatsu
Associate Professor, Center for Pacific and American Studies, Institute for Advanced Global Studies

Received Ph.D. in 2016 from the Department of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S., after obtaining a master’s degree in 2008 from the School of Legal and Political Studies in the Graduate Schools for Law and Politics at the University of Tokyo. Assumed current position in 2021 after working as an assistant professor in the Department of British and American Studies at Nanzan University in Nagoya, Japan. Author of several edited volume chapters and journal articles, including “” (2024, The American Review vol. 58, pp. 57-78).

Interview date: Dec. 20, 2024
Interview: Yuki Terada, Hannah Dahlberg-Dodd