Flawed system

US Republican contender Donald Trump won the presidential election against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by obtaining more “electoral votes”  than she did, but fewer popular votes.

According to the latest information, Clinton received 47.7 per cent of the popular votes against 47.5 per cent for Trump, but only 236 electoral votes, of which Trump received 302.

Somehow this system of granting votes does not seem right or fair.

This anomaly in the US presidential election process raises the question of what one-man, one-vote really means.

Under international law, one-man, one-vote does not mean that a citizen can vote only once, but rather that each vote must have equal power. 

The electoral procedure in the US aims to afford states or local governments certain voting powers not absolutely proportional with the size of their respective population. It, therefore, gives favourable voting powers to some small states.

This election process is unfair as voters in some states enjoy more political weight than those in others.

A better formula would be one that ensures state representation proportional to the size of the population. 

The US Senate members are also elected irrespective of the population size in a bid to ensure regional representation. This exception to universal norms need not be followed when electing the president.

Only when electoral votes are proportional with the size of the population will there be equal voting rights for the citizens of the country.

As is, the system of vote counting  appears flawed. 

The US Supreme Court should step in to rectify this anomaly by ordering the allocation of electoral votes in a manner proportional to population size or the US should embark on a constitutional amendment to give effect to equality among citizens when choosing their president. 

The US Supreme Court already has enough jurisprudence on such an issue. It ruled that electoral districts in states must be determined according to the size of the population. 

If the US fails to rectify the existing unfair election basis, the UN Committee on Civil and Political Rights could be invited to render an opinion about this archaic system. 

The US is a state party to ICCPR and is bound by the judgement of this human rights body.