Introduction
Is it healthy for democracy if a president governs without securing an absolute majority of the electorate? In discussions and what has emerged from the content of the upcoming electoral reform initiative to be submitted to the Legislature, it appears that the topic of a second round in presidential elections has not been considered. This could be viable for Mexico, but its political and institutional feasibility is complex. It would be advisable for this proposal to become part of the discussions and debates on the upcoming electoral reform to determine its suitability or lack thereof as a new electoral rule.
Advantages of a Second Round
Firstly, a winner resulting from a second round would obtain greater democratic legitimacy by securing more than 50% of valid votes. This would provide greater support for their future government. In the last two presidential elections, a second round would have been irrelevant as AMLO secured 53% and Sheinbaum 60%. However, this was not the case in previous elections: Fox received 43%, Calderón 36%, and Peña 38%. Implementing a second-round rule would ensure greater democratic legitimacy for future elections.
A second round would compel parties to build alliances and agreements between the first and second rounds, potentially reducing party system fragmentation. It would also encourage the formation of a coalition government by the second-round winner. Here, the electoral reform should establish norms and rules for functional coalition governance.
A second round would engage the population more actively in elections, allowing them to reconsider their initial vote and exercise a more pragmatic and strategic ballot. Countries with presidential systems in Latin America, such as Chile, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, and Argentina, have seen reasonable success with second rounds.
Disadvantages of a Second Round
On the downside, there would be increased economic costs as organizing a second election involves more public spending on logistics, campaigns, and electoral authorities. Additionally, there could be voter fatigue and disinterest, as well as heightened confrontation and polarization. Furthermore, without effective regulation of party resources and campaign expenses, the risk of criminal organization infiltration in elections would intensify.
Governance extends beyond presidential selection. The election of Congress could result in different political forces controlling it compared to the Executive. This means a president with an absolute majority might face a Congress dominated by the opposition, creating checks and balances against the Executive.
Conclusion
In summary, a second round alone does not guarantee better governance. A comprehensive reform is necessary that includes a second round alongside rules and norms for party and government coalitions, as well as stricter campaign expense regulations and alliance transparency rules between rounds. It would be worthwhile to reflect on these matters.
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: What are the advantages of implementing a second round in Mexico’s presidential elections? A: A second round ensures greater democratic legitimacy for the winning candidate, encourages party alliances, and promotes more strategic voting. It has been successfully implemented in countries like Chile, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, and Argentina.
- Q: What are the potential disadvantages of introducing a second round in Mexico? A: Disadvantages include increased costs, potential voter fatigue, heightened confrontation and polarization, and a greater risk of criminal organization involvement in elections.
- Q: How would a second round affect the relationship between the president and Congress? A: A second round does not directly impact governance, but the election of Congress could result in different political forces controlling it than those electing the president, creating essential checks and balances.
- Q: Is a second round sufficient for improved governance in Mexico? A: No, a comprehensive electoral reform is required that includes a second round alongside rules for party coalitions, stricter campaign finance regulations, and transparency in alliances between rounds.
