Recently re-elected FIFA president Joseph S. Blatter, known to the world as Swiss Sepp Blatter, announced Tuesday he will step down from his post as president of the international football association’s governing body, following criticism over a corruption scandal.

While 14 of his colleagues were recently indicted on charges of bribery, money laundering, and racketeering, Blatter was left unscathed and re-elected for his fifth consecutive term as FIFA president on Friday, May 29^th. During his reelection speech, Blatter rejoiced in his continued reign with the words,

I thank you, you have accepted me for the next four years. I will be in command of this boat called FIFA.

 

However, Blatter has not escaped blame from the global public over the years, having been labeled a dictator, among other names, and accused of sexism and racism reaching far beyond claims of corrupt laundering practices. According to BBC News, the global citizens’ movement Avaaz was responsible for starting the #BlatterOut campaign, which began trending on Twitter just days before the election. Gary Linekar, the former English footballer and current sports broadcaster, is one of the many to join the campaign against Blatter, who seems to have been at the head of FIFA corruption since 1991.

FIFA members should vote for the good of football, and get rid of a man who’s reigned over a corrupt organisation for too long. #BlatterOut

— Gary Lineker (@GaryLineker) May 28, 2015

So what on earth was keeping Blatter in power if so much of the world wanted #BlatterOut? The answer, unlike what most commonly believe, is not so much about the power of the dollar—or the supposed tens of millions of dollars involved in the corruption since 1991—as it is the power of a single vote in any given FIFA presidential election. Each of the 209 national member associations that make up FIFA’s Congress receives exactly one equal vote no matter how much land area the nation possesses or how much of the world’s population lives in each nation. According to the Washington Post, this means the tiny Caribbean island of Montserrat has as much a say as World Cup powerhouses Brazil or Germany in the election. After totaling the member nations counted in the presidential election, here is the breakdown by regional confederation:

So, what Blatter needed to do to get reelected was not to convince the world that he is not as corrupt as his colleagues, but to cater to the areas of the world that would ensure his victory, and he did. Blatter has made what was once a largely European organization a globalized organization, by bringing what he calls “developmental programs” to underprivileged parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Despite where the money came from to start these programs, in doing so, Blatter spoke for most of the 54 votes of the Confederation of African Football (CAF)—the largest number of votes held by any of the six continental confederations above. Amaju Pinnick, the current president of the Nigerian Football Federation, has expressed that,

Without Blatter we wouldn’t enjoy all the benefits we enjoy today from FIFA. What Blatter pushes is equity, fairness and equality among the nations. We don’t want to experiment.

It was not Blatter’s years of experience or money that got him reelected; it was his ability to systematically accommodate the parts of the world that hold the most votes.

The sole person who opposed Blatter in the election for president was Qatari Mohammed bin Hammam, but he withdrew from the race after suspension by FIFA’s ethics committee due to allegations that he offered financial incentives to Caribbean Football Union members. The response to corruption by England’s Football Association and its chairman David Bernstein was to postpone the election, to instill credibility back into the process, and to appoint an independent external committee to make recommendations about future election processes. Yet, the FA’s proposal was again put up to the votes of 206 member nations equally and the election moved forward without delay.

Are Blatter’s or any other FIFA administrator’s corrupt practices inevitable in this day and age of soccer as yet another means of politics? Or is Blatter’s attempt to globalize the world by bringing soccer and developmental programs to countries outside of Europe a kind of affirmative action policy that permits or even necessitates some corruption behind the scenes? Whether you answer yes or no to these questions, FIFA’s Executive Committee might consider an election reform of proportional representation by member nations in order to assure that the next FIFA president elected is preferred in power by all parts of the world instead of only by the continent with the most votes.

Jenifer Carter

Jenifer Carter is a member of the University of Virginia Class of 2016. Contact Jenifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Re-election Forces FIFA President to Resign appeared first on Law Street.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) published an op-ed in the New York Times last week that points out a major problem with our nation’s government–the House of Representatives doesn’t actually represent the American people. Schumer is right, and our electoral system deserves much of the blame.

As Schumer mentioned in his piece, roughly a third of Americans are right-leaning conservatives, a third are left-leaning liberals, and a third are independents with moderate views. Schumer explained that because voter turnout is so low in primaries, the extreme ends of both parties or, the “third of a third” decide who wins in primary elections. The Tea Party is a prime example of this idea in practice. Roughly 10 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Partiers, so if the House of Representatives was truly representative, the Tea Party would have 10 percent of the seats. But because they are way more active in elections than more moderate Republicans, 144 of 435 current congressman, or 33.1 percent, support the Tea Party. It would be easy to just blame this problem on those who don’t vote. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that. According to his op-ed, Sen. Schumer’s proposal to reform our primary system is to institute a “top-two” primary. In this system, all candidates run in one primary and all voters vote, regardless of party. The top two candidates then enter a run-off, or general election. This means that you may have a general election with two Democrats, or two Republicans, but no matter what, they will represent the district’s two favorite choices. However, this reform may not be enough.

The roots of the problem stem from gerrymandering and our first-past-the-post, single member congressional districts. Let’s start with the problem of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Imagine a state that votes roughly 70 percent Democrat and 30 percent Republican. Under any definition of fair, roughly 70 percent of the state’s representatives should be Democrats and 30 percent Republicans. But this hardly ever happens. For example, I used an approximation of Massachusetts’s party breakdown for the description above, yet Democrats hold all nine of its congressional seats. Thirty percent of Massachusetts is not represented in Congress. This occurs because our congressional districts have only one member and are elected by FPTP, meaning the first candidate to break the 50 percent barrier wins the one seat and all those who voted for the loser are not represented.

Because the 30 percent of voters who are Republican are not concentrated in any one congressional district enough to break the 50 percent barrier, they have no representation. This may have been aided by gerrymandering–the process of drawing districts to favor a political party. But even without gerrymandering, Republicans in Massachusetts would be lucky if they won one or two seats. Where gerrymandering really amplifies the problem is when it creates completely uncompetitive districts, meaning one party is all but guaranteed to win it. This makes the primary election much more important than the general election. This brings us back to the issue raised by Sen. Schumer–the more extreme candidate often wins these primary elections, and then succeeds in an unchallenged general election. This allows the extreme 10 percent of voters to decide who represents the whole district. This is how our House of Representatives has become so polarized, and a terrible representation of the views of many Americans.

So, what is the solution to this giant mess? Unfortunately, Schumer’s solution has not been proven to work in the states that have already implemented it. This problem requires a more drastic solution, something called proportional representation. A detailed plan for a proportional representation system is described by the organization FairVote, but I will give you a simple version. Under this new hypothetical plan, there would no longer be single member congressional districts, but larger districts that would have either three or five representatives. The representatives would be elected using ranked choice voting, a method in which voters rank their favorite candidates. How exactly this would work is described here. But essentially, in these three or five seat districts, the minority party would have the chance for its voice to be heard. In a five-seat district, where exactly 60 percent of voters are Democrat and 40 percent are Republican, three seats will go to the Democratic Party and two to the Republicans. See the infographic below to see how this plan would impact a state with a party breakdown similar to Massachusetts.

Proportional representation is a system that distributes seats in a much fairer way than FPTP does. It will get moderates back in Congress and increase voter turnout, because voters will feel like they can actually elect someone who represents them. It will fix the House of Representatives by making its name match its definition–the House will finally represent the American people.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PBS NewsHour via Flickr]

Editor’s note: The author of this piece previously interned at FairVote.

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Fix the House of Representatives appeared first on Law Street.