Dear Alan,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponWith news breaking every day, this is the first chance we've had to talk about longer-term issues of reform. I will resist commenting on your opening remarks about the "overwhelming" odds against Gore and the relative partisanship of the players in Florida, except to say that Gore will lose if and only if his arguments are rejected on the merits (as they should be), and that—with the honorable exception of the Palm Beach canvassing board—there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties in terms of their partisan loyalty.
First, our points of agreement. Punch-card voting must go, and with it the need for manual recounts, chad, dimples, and flaps. I am not techno-savvy enough to know what the best system would be, but I'm confident we can come up with an accurate voting machinery.
The Electoral College should stay, not only for the reasons you mention but also because it discourages fringe parties. I know it is unpopular to say so, but the two-party system is an important ingredient in our stable democratic system. A two-party system tends to produce candidates who attempt to appeal to the middle. That may not be exciting, but moderate politics is better than the politics of the extremes.
I also agree that voting registration needs to be reformed. As you say, the system should be "streamlined" and "simple" so that potential voters are not turned off. But the most urgent need is to make the system more reliable. I think you are misinformed when you say that current registration procedures are "cumbersome and often intimidating." Today, especially after the federal Motor Voter law, you can register to vote easily, without hassle. It takes less time than using an ATM. The more serious problem is that there are untold thousand of voters on the rolls who have died, moved away, are not citizens, or have multiple registrations. I recently moved from Chicago to Utah, and there was no procedure for removing my name from the Chicago rolls when I started to vote in Utah. For all I know, a phantom "Michael McConnell" is still adding to the vote totals in Bill Daley's hometown. Moreover, when I voted last month, no one asked to see any identification and no one compared my signature to the official signature on the rolls. It was widely reported that several Wisconsin students voted multiple times in the recent election, just on a lark. One of them said he voted for himself, as a write-in, four times. Most multiple voting is not so benign. When people vote multiple times, or when votes are recorded for dead or departed voters, everyone else's right to vote has been diluted. This should be stopped.
I also agree with you about televising Supreme Court proceedings. As an occasional Supreme Court advocate, I am always struck by the difference between the arguments inside the courtroom, which are strictly disciplined by law and by the ability of the justices to expose unfounded arguments, and the arguments (often by the same people) at the TV cameras on the courthouse steps. The current setup—coverage by reporters without actual pictures—is a nice compromise, which gives the public needed information without turning the court into a show.
The real reason cameras are excluded, though, is that the justices like being anonymous. They like to be able to go to a restaurant or a shopping mall without being mobbed, recognized, threatened, praised, or importuned. That may sound selfish on their part, but there is a public interest in it, as well. The justices are already a bit too insulated from real life and from the consequences of their decisions. They cannot talk about their decisions with anyone other than their law clerks and each other, and when they appear in public—especially before legal audiences—they are treated like demigods. This is not a good thing. It would be unfortunate if, by turning them into public celebrities, they were forced into even greater isolation.
Our biggest disagreement is about campaign-finance reform. I don't disagree with your criticism of the present system. It is awful. But you are overly optimistic about solving it. Even assuming that it is constitutional to limit campaign contributions, as well as expenditures by candidates (which would require overruling a number of Supreme Court decisions, including one just this year), it is surely not constitutional to prevent independent individuals and groups from supporting candidates. For example, an editorial endorsement by the New York Times "costs" thousands of dollars and is worth many thousands more. But if "freedom of the press" means anything, it stands for the right of people to publish their opinions about political issues, including the virtues and vices of candidates. Other organizations, such as the Sierra Club and the NRA, have no fewer rights. They, too, can publish their opinions about issues and candidates. This is surely protected by the First Amendment.
But if we limit campaign contributions and campaign expenditures, but do not (because we cannot) limit election-related speech by independent groups, it would only make things worse. Campaign money will not cease to flow. It will just flow into less accountable and less responsible channels. Special interest groups will gain in influence at the expense of parties and candidates.
A good argument can be made that even our existing campaign-finance laws have made matters worse. I am offended by the fact that Patrick Buchanan was given millions of taxpayer dollars merely because Ross Perot got over 5 percent of the vote last time. I was offended in 1996 when, because Bob Dole had to participate in the primary campaign while Bill Clinton was unopposed for renomination, Clinton was able to run TV commercials all summer when it was illegal for Dole to do so. I am offended by the fact that multimillionaires like John Corzine, Mark Dayton, Maria Cantwell, Michael Huffington, and half the Utah congressional delegation are able to spend millions of their own money while opponents who rely on the support of the public are fettered by law. Is it really campaign "reform" to give a structural advantage to rich candidates?
Wouldn't it be better to scrap existing laws and allow individuals (not corporations or labor unions) to contribute what they wish, subject to immediate and very public disclosure?
Tell me, Alan, what forms of campaign-finance reform would work.
Finally, let me pass on an amazing bit of information, which I picked up from Robin Galiano in the Washington Times. According to Galiano, there is a patron saint of disputed elections, named—believe it or not—St. Chad! It seems Chad was a seventh-century English bishop whose election to be Archbishop of York was disputed. To avoid un-Christian disputation, he withdrew in favor of the other candidate. As they would say on television, I am not making this up.
Slate Editors Spent All Day Arguing About Cancer Screenings and Health Care Rationing
What a Meal of Beef Stomach and Duck Throats Taught Me About the New China
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Train, Plane, or Automobile? What's the Greenest Way to Travel for Thanksgiving?
The Two Craziest Men in Hollywood Teamed Up To Make This Movie
Did Easy Rider's Predictions About America Come True?
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)