Washington PostPost-Traumatic
Suggestions If
there are county commissioners, state legislators and secretaries of
state pondering what to resolve for the New Year, here's a
suggestion. Resolve to fix your voting system. You'll want to get rid
of confusing ballots, including the infamous butterfly ballots.
You'll also want to replace punch-card voting machines. Given the
political trauma of the recent presidential election, those reforms
are virtually automatic. At least they ought to
be. The problem is that some of you have been so fixated on Florida
and the controversy about whether and how to count disqualified
ballots that you may be missing a critical aspect of the problem. I
refer to the fact that the most error-prone machines tend to be in
the poorest counties. It may be coincidental
that those counties' voters are often disproportionately minorities,
but it is a fact. That's the chief reason why the Supreme Court's
derailing of the recount in Florida is seen by much of the civil
rights community as a racial matter. They are convinced (who
isn't?) that a manual inspection of the ballots rejected by the
outdated voting machines would have given Florida's electoral votes
-- and the presidency -- to Vice President Al
Gore. But this isn't just a
matter for Florida -- or for this election. The Post reported last
week that one of every 16 presidential ballots was invalidated in
Atlanta's Fulton County, which uses punch-card machines, compared
with a rate of one in 200 for Cobb and Gwinnett counties, which have
more modern equipment. A sixth of the ballots in some heavily black
Chicago precincts were thrown out, while almost every vote in the
outer suburbs was counted. I hope you'll resolve
to fix that. In fact, you'd better resolve to fix that. If any
obvious inference is to be drawn from the controversial holding of
the U.S. Supreme Court, it is that states that use voting devices of
varying accuracy risk being found in violation of the "equal
protection" clause of the Constitution. But that's the
mechanical aspect of voting. My suggestion for reform goes deeper --
that you fix the electoral system. I have in mind two
things. First -- and this ought to be a national initiative --
resolve to end the winner-take-all method of choosing presidential
electors. Even without tinkering with the electoral college, it
surely is possible to choose a state's electors in proportion to the
votes for the presidential candidates. If that had happened in
Florida, Gore and Bush would have been arguing over who got 13 of
the state's electoral votes and who got 12. As it was, Bush, who
garnered less than a majority of Florida's popular vote, received
all 25 of its electoral votes, in effect disenfranchising half
Florida's electorate. While you're resolving
at least to think about a system of proportional representation, you
might take a look at the idea of preference voting. If it's wrong to
disenfranchise voters whose presidential candidate loses by even the
tiniest margin, it is also wrong to penalize those who vote for
their preferred candidate by transforming that vote into support for
their least favorite candidate. That is precisely what
happens now. A vote for Pat Buchanan in the recent election, for
instance, translated into a vote for Gore, even though it is
unlikely that Gore would have been that voter's second choice. Ralph
Nader probably took enough Florida votes that otherwise would have
gone to Gore to hand the election to Bush. Under a preference
system, voters could list, say, Buchanan as their first choice and
Bush as their second. If no candidate received a majority of the
total vote, then second-choice ballots would be tallied -- in effect
an instant runoff. The obvious result
would be that no candidate would be elected with less than a
majority of the vote. But another, far more important, outcome would
be the empowerment of third parties. It would be significantly
easier to build third-party movements if supporters knew they
weren't helping to elect their least-favored major-party candidate.
In addition, it would give third-party supporters more clout with
the major parties, which would be tempted to modify their campaigns
to make their candidates attractive at least as a second
choice. Just a suggestion. |