Who Needs to 'Help' America Vote?

The Washington Post ^ | October 29, 2006 | George F. Will

[neverdem]

The hoariest jest in conservatism's repertoire is that the three least credible assertions in the English language are "The check is in the mail," "Of course I'll respect you as much in the morning" and "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." Which brings us to the exquisitely named Help America Vote Act.

Having fixed Iraq and New Orleans, the federal government's healing touch is now being applied to voting. As a result, days -- perhaps weeks -- might pass after Election Day without the nation's knowing which party controls the House or Senate. If that happens, one reason might be HAVA, that 2002 bit of federal helpfulness.

For over two centuries before Congress passed HAVA, Americans voted. Really. Unlike today, those who were elected -- Clay, Webster, Lincoln and lesser lights -- often were more complex and sophisticated than the voting machinery.

Using pencils to make marks on paper and later using machines to punch holes in paper ballots, voters -- without federal help; imagine -- caused Congresses and presidents to come and go. States ran elections; some ran them better than others. Some ballots have been better designed than others, as have some voting machines. Most have been adequate. The gross defects of American voting practices were laws that established or permitted discrimination and other abuses. Tardily, but emphatically, those laws were changed and other abuses were halted.

Then came 2000 and Florida and the 36-day lawyers' scrum about George W. Bush's 537-vote margin of victory. In response to which, Congress passed HAVA, which in 2006 may produce fresh confirmation of the prudential axiom that the pursuit of the perfect is the enemy of the good.

The lesson that should have been learned from Florida was: In Florida, as in life generally, one should...

[neverdem]

NYC journalist killed in Mexico shootout

Fox sends federal police to Mexico's Oaxaca crisis

[NYFriend]

We have a great many legal or political fictions, principles and assumptions we hold dear and rely on, not because we think they are true, but because we want them to be.

In regard to Election day, some of those that come to mind are: It is your right and obligation to vote; Every vote counts; and the people elect the President.

First, people are all given the right to vote, because of the ficiton that our electorate is informed and responsible. People cast votes for and against candidates they've never heard of, and for offices they've either never heard of or don't understand. But their votes count as much as anyone else's. I could almost live with a ballot that required voters to write in the names of the candidates for which they are voting.

Second, anyone who has worked a contested election (as I have) can tell you about undervotes (the difference between voters casting ballots and the total number ballots cast for a given office); spoiled ballots; and discarded paper (provisional and absentee) ballots, and the fact that in most elections, the winner has a comfortable margin.

Finally, we all know that, with the electoral college, the people don't elect the President. It's more complicated that just having electors cast votes representative of the will of their electorate. Forgetting about faithless electors (someone who votes for a candidate other than the one they pledge to vote for) two factors separate the voter from the President. For big thing is that the winner-take- all system used by most states throws off the precision, and in rare cases, the accuracy of election results. Case and point, the times where a President has lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote. The other thing, which isn't as major, is that the electoral college underweights votes cast in populous states and overweights them in small states, because it assigns electors for Senators.

Now, the electoral college is law. When we use it, we are following an established and orderly system of choosing our leader. However, I submit that it is somewhat arbitrary due to the winner-take-all provisions in most states.

Specifically regarding election machines, New York is using mechanical voting machines. They are old, and sometimes poorly maintained. No one wants to spend the money on keeping them up, and they sometimes break down. If you maintain them, they are the most accurate, reliable, and secure system of voting in existence. Once sealed, they are tamper-proof. I've gone through warehouses filled with impounded voting machines, and I checked machine numbers, counts, and seals. The machines also keep a paper trail of votes cast to prevent tampering with the machine or voiding votes after they are cast. Actual errors on the machines part are almost impossible, and they are very easy to use. Not everything new or digital is an improvement.