Dear Alan,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponI think the legitimacy concerns about this election are overblown. An election where both of the candidates get about 48 percent of the vote shows a much healthier democracy than where the ruling party gets a supermajority every time. I enjoyed the comment by a Mexican newspaper columnist: "We knew at 6:00 p.m. on July 2 [that Vicente Fox had been elected president]. And that's not all! In previous elections we knew the results a year in advance."
Nor have the level of voting "irregularities" been unusually high. If you held any election in the United States—and, I suspect, the world—up to this degree of scrutiny, you would find about the same level of uncertainty. It is reassuring that the biggest "irregularity" of them all was a confusing "butterfly ballot" designed in good faith by a Democratic election official for the purpose of making the ballot easier to read and approved in advance by all parties. If the election had not been so close, we would be congratulating ourselves on another peaceful and orderly democratic transition.
Since it was so close, the apparent losing party is flyspecking every detail of the election to find mistakes that, if corrected, would produce more votes for their candidate. I do not begrudge them that. The law required an automatic recount, and in times like these we should follow the letter of the law. Whatever that is.
But the rhetorical assault on the Florida system and its officials by the Gore campaign is another matter. It would have been far better for the Gore campaign to acknowledge that the "irregularities" they identify were the products of unintentional mistakes, which, combined with bad technology and careless voters, may have affected the outcome. There is no factual basis for attacks on the other side's good faith, or claims of illegitimacy—especially since the most important error was made by a Democratic official for the purpose of making the ballot easier for elderly voters to read. The same is true of some statements by supporters of the Texas governor, but I have seen nothing emanating from the Bush campaign that rivals Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani's accusation that Republican resistance to Democratic maneuvers is "an outrageous attempt by Bush to steal the election."
The most important question is whether to adjust the machine count by a so-called "hand count," in which election officials eyeball each ballot and make a judgment about the voter's intent. The Democrats are right that machine counts of punched ballots tend to produce undercounts, which in a close election like this one could unfairly affect the result. But the Republicans are right that hand counts by election officials are highly susceptible to partisan manipulation.
Which system is worse? I am inclined to think that low levels of essentially random error, which could and do occur anywhere, are more tolerable than selective errors caused by human bias. The problem of careless voters failing to completely punch the ballot is the functional equivalent of long lines, bad weather, and every other factor that depresses the level of voting evenly between the parties. Moreover, the hand recount in Miami, which found less than one-tenth of 1 percent difference, casts doubt on the reliability of the higher numbers projected by the Democratic officials in Palm Beach County. So, if I were designing election law, I would treat the machine count as authoritative.
But above all, in cases like this, we should follow the letter of the law. As to that, Florida law is clear: The county canvassing board is expressly authorized to conduct a manual recount to correct "errors" in the machine tabulation. So, despite the potential unfairness, the Democrats are on firm legal ground. The Republicans' federal constitutional lawsuit to block hand recounts was rebuffed by the district court and may cost them the moral high ground by taking this issue into the courts.
But that is not the end of the matter. The law entrusts these decisions in the first instance to county election officials. The canvassing board of Miami-Dade County has decided not to order full hand counts, while Palm Beach County is proceeding with a full hand count. The Broward County canvassers voted against a hand recount Monday but switched on Tuesday. A hand count in Volusia County is completed, with a net gain of 98 votes for Gore. No other county is planning a count. This raises several issues.
First, it is inherently unfair and unreliable to perform a hand count only in one place, a heavily Democratic stronghold. If there is a predictable undercount from machine reading punched ballots, then any adjustment should be made systematically, all over the state. Much of the state does not use punch-card voting. The population of punch-voting counties that went for Gore is 6 million, while that of punch-voting counties that went for Bush is 2.5 million, meaning that Gore would have the advantage even if the hand recount were extended to the entire state.
Second, we must consider the possibility of appeals to the courts. The Gore forces have already announced their intention to appeal the Dade County decision not to conduct a full hand count. Presumably, the Bush forces are contemplating an appeal of the opposite decision in Palm Beach. If—as I suspect—the courts defer to the local officials' decision, then both appeals will be rejected. But depending on the results of the foreign absentee ballots, which remain uncounted, a Palm Beach hand recount alone could swing the election to Gore.
Third, there is the problem of a lack of standards for the hand count. Already, the Palm Beach ballot counters have used three different standards for counting ballots, and a state court ruled today that there is no standard beyond the canvassers' assessment of the voter's "intention." I haven't looked at the precedents, but the Republicans may have a strong argument that all these standards are too lenient. Voting instructions place the responsibility on the voter to "be sure your voting selections are cleanly punched and there are no chips left hanging on the back of the card." Arguably, voters who fail to follow these instructions have only themselves to blame.
Whatever the standard, election officials will be called upon to make hundreds of close, essentially subjective determinations under intense partisan pressure. The possibility of legal wrangling over individual judgment calls staggers the imagination. Of course, the prospect that there can be no appeal from erroneous and possibly biased judgment calls is even more unimaginable.
At the next stage, Secretary of State Katherine Harris will have to decide whether to allow counties to amend their certified returns as a result of the hand count. The Florida statute governing this appears, on its face, to require counties to complete their counts by close of business yesterday, but a state court has ruled that this issue lies in the secretary's discretion. That may appear to enhance her authority, but in reality it cuts the other way. Her best (and heretofore only) reason for declining to recognize recount results that occur after the deadline has been that the statute doesn't permit it. Now, she may have to offer other reasons, and those reasons will presumably be subject to review in the (Democrat-controlled) state courts.
All this is enough to keep lawyers and citizens guessing for quite some time.
Then there lies the prospect of a political conclusion at either the state or federal level. Under federal law, if the state has held an election "and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law," the legislature is empowered to choose electors. And members of Congress are entitled to challenge any electoral vote that has not been "regularly given," whatever that means. I can only hope it doesn't get to that point.
So much for the legal details. Alan, what aspects of this extraordinary election will the historians of the future find most significant?
News of the World Hush-Money Scandal: How Much Did Rupert Murdoch Know?
Obama's Nominee for NIH Chief Is an Evangelical Christian. And That's OK.
It's Way Too Soon To Call the Stimulus a Failure
I'm Having a Dinner To Celebrate My Divorce
Can the Kid Who Settled Child-Abuse Claims With Michael Jackson Finally Speak Out?
Fake News You Can Dance To
Reader Comments from The Fray:
Michael McConnell argues that even a state-wide hand count might give Gore an unfair advantage, because the questionable punch card ballots were used predominantly in counties that heavily supported Gore. But his logic is flawed; he forgets that the argument for a hand recount--widespread undervoting that a human eye might correct--has already taken this very discrepancy into account. Though the hand recount would most likely discover a larger number of new votes for Gore than Bush because of the problems with punch cards, the inverse is true for the current machine count: Bush has been unfairly over-represented by his support in counties with more technologically advanced voting systems. It is not necessarily improper to concentrate energy on hand recounts in punch card counties, since they are the ones in which problems with unread votes are more likely. While I can't think of any serious argument against a state-wide hand count (except for the question about hand count subjectivity which might be dealt with by simple guidelines), the problem now is simply that the Republicans have argued for too long against hand counting at all, and are thus unable to concede this clear, proper compromise.
--Jared White
(To reply, click here.)
I believe that the hand recount is conducted, ballot by ballot, with a representative of both political parties, both of whom must agree on the party for whom each vote was cast. Any ballot that the two person team does not agree on is then reviewed by a three member panel of non-partisans. My point is simply that the recount is not a subjective as one might think. Since one of the candidates campaigned on the slogan that he "trusts the people" and the other has indicated a willingness to trust the people on this issue, I am surprised there is a problem.
--Carrie McLain
(To reply, click here.)
A way out: the Burr-Hamilton solution.
--APM
(To reply, click here.)
(11/15)
Reader Comments from The Fray:
I find it amusing that the Democrats are telling President-elect Bush that the only way he can succeed is to adopt their agenda.
The popular vote, as close as it was, could have swung Bush's way if it was recounted as Florida was. If California and all the voter irregularity in the excessively liberal and populous states were taken out of the picture, the popular vote across the nation was significantly more for Bush. It presents a more accurate picture of America as a whole to view the popular vote minus California. That's the reason for the Electoral College.
Democrats should be looking and asking themselves why they blew this election rather than deluding themselves that it was stolen. Look within. The liberal lies and scare-mongering, and class warfare language and willingness to depart from the law in order to win at any costs is not going to serve America or the Democratic party well. When America has more time to reflect on the days since the election, the Democrats will not fare so well. That is why the Democrats are trying still to deflect attention from their failures.
Vice-President Gore gave a noble speech last night. For the first time in this election process I gained respect for him. He was finally speaking honestly. Liberals should try honesty instead of distortion and manipulation more often.
--Mark Sherman
(To reply, click here.)
Sorry, but I don't see true bipartisanship happening. The division you see has been growing for decades. It isn't between skinheads or klansmen and 'good honest Americans,' it is between those who are willing to be responsible for themselves, and those who've been inculcated with the idea that they have a god-given right to the fruits of someone else's labor. The Dems have done the indoctrinating, and those of us who flocked to the personal freedom stances of 60's Democratic candidates are appalled at how the current flock of Democrat candidates have taken full advantage of the 'buy a vote with welfare' techniques they've developed over the years. I have predicted class warfare by 2010 since 1975. I may be off a couple years, but dramatic changes are in order
--Dennis Jacques
(To reply, click here.)
Â
Reader Comments from The Fray:
I disagree that what the Supreme Court faces is less compelling than Dred Scott. It's time to get past all this rhetoric and look at what we, as citizens, are being dealt. First of all, forget all the pious cant about the wisdom of the founding fathers. The Constitution was never a document that guaranteed democracy in this country, since the founding fathers' didn't want democracy. They didn't want people to be able to vote for the president, that was the job for politicians. Jefferson himself wrote "the people is an ass." While they may have been against British rule, they were in no shape or form democrats in light of the term today. And the Republicans are not such great believers in democracy today. If they were, they would have worked to get an accurate count in Florida. The Supremes are either going to yank us into the present, for those "asses" like myself, of haul us back into the past. That is the Constitutional issue at stake.
--George Grella
(To reply, click here.)
As we await the Supreme Court's decision, I stand astonished. Not that the Supreme Court delved into the 'miasma' of this election dispute--it is not such a bad idea for the last word of the land to have the last word; what astonished me was Scalia's stated reason for the stay granted. The stay itself was not such a bad idea (I voted for Gore, by the way). The decision needed to be made before there were facts on the ground so that no one felt any more robbed than they already do. However, Scalia's unprecedented indication that he has already made up his mind before even receiving a brief must have ruffled some of his colleague's feathers and perhaps created an environment that may well send the 'swing justices'--Kennedy and O'Connor--into the arms of the solid opposition. Scalia's statement may well turn out to be a self-fulfilling anti-prophecy.
It would be most astonishing if any decision were 5 to 4. I think it is more likely that there will be a more solid majority behind some sort of solomonic solution. One hopes that the court will be very, very cautious not to create law itself.
--Rabbi Jason
(To reply, click here.)
In our world of constant disorder, why is it so surprising that the old technology-based society is colliding with the new tech order? We are transforming our entire society to the new tech order. Many systems have not made the transition. Voting processes and systems are at the top of the list right now. This collision must take place and the new tech order take its proper place in this function of our society. Laws must change to support the new order. For now, the courts must decide the outcome based on our current technology and laws. We must invest the next four years and make our voting systems capable of supporting our transforming society, and build new law in this process.
--Steve R
(To reply, click here.)
(12/11)