The myth will undoubtedly live on that there was some way to get an
accurate manual recount in Florida. In truth, however, the most
accurate count -- within the margins of statistical error -- was a tie.
Any recount would have merely produced a different sort of
miscalculation. Dubious dimples, bureaucratic foul-ups, deliberate but
(over the near term) indeterminable voter suppression among blacks and
military personnel, faulty disqualification of absentee ballots,
post-election ballot alteration both by accident and fraud, as well as
100,000 suspicious over-votes made a fair recount impossible. One may
not like the solution to such problems contained in the law and
Constitution, but it's hard to criticize the Supreme Court for
observing it. Besides, attempting to deal with errors and fraud after
an election but before a winner is named rarely works. The solution is
generally not to be found in recounting after the precinct doors are
closed but in reforming things before they open again.
This is not as much fun for Jesse Jackson as going on TV and claiming that the Supreme Court had issued the Dred Scott decision of the 20th century, but the fact of the matter is that these problems didn't just crop up at this election. They have been standard operating procedure in various parts of the country for a long time, not infrequently thanks to Democratic politicians. Until now, however, they just never made it to the top of the ever migratory Jackson agenda.
It is a complicated business, in no small part because all politics is local. For example, Al Gore may need a certain county's black vote but the Democratic leadership there may, for its own reasons, want to keep this vote down. Elsewhere, a precinct may be Democratic but the poll workers are assigned by the Republican county machine. And so forth.
Dealing with all this is tedious and difficult. It may involve criminal investigations and it may require new laws. Sometimes, stories that appear to be true won't check out. One things for sure: you don't find the answers yammering on cable TV about racism. You will find them the way 1960s civil rights attorneys did, with hard-won and sustainable facts.
The election has also created new opposition to the electoral college. This opposition is based on the illusion that the only real democracy is one in which the winner takes all -- even if the winner (as has happened repeatedly in American history including this time) doesn't represent a majority of the voters, let alone anywhere near a majority of eligible citizens. There are, in fact, other forms of democracy. Quakers, for example, practice consensual democracy. The democracy of a congressional veto required a two-thirds vote and constitutional amendments also demand super majorities. The electoral college is a similar check on what is often only a pseudo-majority opinion. It demands, among other things, that the president represent not only the interests of those most numbers in the least space, but those throughout what are still, under the Constitution, considered united states. It also encourages candidates to seek out constituencies that are geographically confined. Perhaps the most important statistically insignificant constituency of this sort is the farmer. Do away with the electoral college and farm policy will disappear from campaigns even more than it already has.
The happiest reform would be to retain the electoral college, but for states to adopt preferential (or instant runoff) voting for president. Thus, in each state, a clear consensus choice would be obtained, avoiding totally the sort of crisis that developed in Florida.
Finally, voting machines need to be improved in many places, bearing in mind that computer voting is in itself no guarantee of honesty absent a program code available for public inspection.
In short, the way to correct the count is to improve the machines, introduce preferential voting, and do what is necessary to eliminate specific forms of fraud. It won't make good TV, but it will sure make a better country.
This is not as much fun for Jesse Jackson as going on TV and claiming that the Supreme Court had issued the Dred Scott decision of the 20th century, but the fact of the matter is that these problems didn't just crop up at this election. They have been standard operating procedure in various parts of the country for a long time, not infrequently thanks to Democratic politicians. Until now, however, they just never made it to the top of the ever migratory Jackson agenda.
It is a complicated business, in no small part because all politics is local. For example, Al Gore may need a certain county's black vote but the Democratic leadership there may, for its own reasons, want to keep this vote down. Elsewhere, a precinct may be Democratic but the poll workers are assigned by the Republican county machine. And so forth.
Dealing with all this is tedious and difficult. It may involve criminal investigations and it may require new laws. Sometimes, stories that appear to be true won't check out. One things for sure: you don't find the answers yammering on cable TV about racism. You will find them the way 1960s civil rights attorneys did, with hard-won and sustainable facts.
The election has also created new opposition to the electoral college. This opposition is based on the illusion that the only real democracy is one in which the winner takes all -- even if the winner (as has happened repeatedly in American history including this time) doesn't represent a majority of the voters, let alone anywhere near a majority of eligible citizens. There are, in fact, other forms of democracy. Quakers, for example, practice consensual democracy. The democracy of a congressional veto required a two-thirds vote and constitutional amendments also demand super majorities. The electoral college is a similar check on what is often only a pseudo-majority opinion. It demands, among other things, that the president represent not only the interests of those most numbers in the least space, but those throughout what are still, under the Constitution, considered united states. It also encourages candidates to seek out constituencies that are geographically confined. Perhaps the most important statistically insignificant constituency of this sort is the farmer. Do away with the electoral college and farm policy will disappear from campaigns even more than it already has.
The happiest reform would be to retain the electoral college, but for states to adopt preferential (or instant runoff) voting for president. Thus, in each state, a clear consensus choice would be obtained, avoiding totally the sort of crisis that developed in Florida.
Finally, voting machines need to be improved in many places, bearing in mind that computer voting is in itself no guarantee of honesty absent a program code available for public inspection.
In short, the way to correct the count is to improve the machines, introduce preferential voting, and do what is necessary to eliminate specific forms of fraud. It won't make good TV, but it will sure make a better country.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.