Wednesday, November 22, 2000

By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-large

As a conservative and partly libertarian pundit, I spend a lot of time trying to convince people that the federal government is too large and intrusive, and is involved in matters it is not authorized by the Constitution to be involved in.

But there is one thing that the federal government could and should do to improve the nation as a whole that it has not done.

I think it's becoming clear to everyone who is paying any attention at all to the mess in Florida that the federal government needs to standardize the nation's voting machinery.

What we have in Florida is a complete debacle, but don't blame Florida. It could have happened almost anywhere. Florida just happens to be under the national microscope right now.

Similarly exposed, would Fulton County or Georgia put on a better show? Maybe, but I'm not all that certain.

All of the counties in all of the states need to use the same equipment for voting, and that equipment needs to be modernized every now and then.

If the thought of mandatory standardization frightens you, perhaps the better route would be simply to give each state a ballot modernization block grant every few years. Then, at least, no state would have an excuse for using antiquated machinery that's not even manufactured anymore.

Or using mail-in ballots, for heaven's sake!

But in Florida, the problem is not that the machinery is antiquated. Rather, it's that the procedures are not well spelled out.

It wouldn't matter so much in 99 percent of elections, in which there's at least a 5 or 10 percent margin. But in an election as tight as this one, clearly spelled-out procedures are a must. New procedures may not guarantee the absence of corruption and error, but they should reduce the chance of it dramatically.

Florida's ballots were designed to be counted by machines, purposely to reduce the opportunity for human error intentional or otherwise. Yet some county election leaders have decided to have those ballots counted by hundreds of fallible, corruptible, admittedly biased human beings.

And then on top of that, a judge declared that those humans should use their discretion to decide whether to count ballots that were improperly punched ones that were not punched all the way through, as the instructions clearly state, but that have "dimples" that might indicate that the person was thinking about punching that particular hole.

Think about where that leads. A counter who thinks he can read that voter's mind might conclude that the voter intended to punch the hole for a given candidate but just didn't push hard enough. That counter would count the vote for that candidate.

I, on the other hand, think it's obvious that the most likely reason for a dimple is that the person started to punch that hole, changed his mind or suddenly realized she was punching the wrong spot, and changed holes at the last minute.

If I'm right, you're going to see a lot of perfectly valid votes thrown out, because the counter is going to read the dimple as one vote and the second hole punched through as a second vote, invalidating the ballot.

That process is a sham.

Some pundits are saying that Florida law clearly spells out that a machine recount is the right course of action if the vote differential is closer than 1 percent, and they're arguing that the recount has been performed and that should be the end of it.

I can agree with that if the law is really that clear. But if it's really that clear, why isn't it being followed?

I've also read that the law allows hand recounts only if it's been shown that something is wrong with the machines. Again, if it's all that clear, I can't imagine a judge denying a motion to stop the hand recount. All the lawyer has to is stick a highlighted copy of the law under the judge's nose.

I have to think the law is not clear, and in that case it needs to be rewritten, preferably by someone who communicates for a living, not someone who litigates for a living.

I'm not sure yet whether I'm ready to push for a federal law that spells out voting procedures and contingencies for close or tie votes. I hate to advocate anything where the federal government takes more control.

But I'm tempted. I'm mighty tempted.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page