A lead editorial in the conservative Weekly Standard, published around the same time, lingered suspiciously on an automatic recount in Florida that narrowed Bush's lead, and concluded: "In our bones, we're pretty sure what happened here. In the middle of the night on Nov. 8, Democratic ultraloyalists - watched a fevered [Gore campaign chairman] Bill Daley announce that things were still close in Florida - and that his party's campaign would 'continue' until the rectification of unspecified 'irregularities' in that state made Al Gore president. The ultraloyalists read this hint for what it was. And next, they set about, fast as lightning, before anyone was watching, doing 'anything to win.' "
Conservatives might or might not be more paranoid than their opposite numbers, but the current atmosphere makes distrust of election results from certain groups among the losing side likely. As I noted last time, certain media sources (including the NYT), are writing about such people as if they are partisan sore losers who are selectively quoting the facts. I'm not sure if groups such as Common Cause or election officials in New Mexico are so easy to stereotype as "denizens of the Web" and other fellow travelers. And, yes, advocates for reform tend to focus on certain facts for effect. There is nothing unique about (election) reformers focusing on the bad, not the good.
The article in the NYT also is quite selective on discussing the problems at issue, including their citation of a (preliminary) study that only deals with a few issues. Their website also posts a report on the problems with voting in Georgia in 2000 (it suggests computerized voting machines improved things considerably in 2004), a year where doubts were raised as well. Are the naysayers willing to admit the doubters had a point then? This is not only about intentional fraud, though some critics act as if it was, admittedly because a few advocates make that suggestion.
But, put aside the usual heavyhanded rhetoric of a few, and ask yourself if this is so nuts:
While there have been many accounts of problems associated with the Ohio vote, from reports of 90,000 spoiled ballots, to software glitches resulting in more votes tallied than the number of registered voters, to new voters not being notified where their polling places were, to too few voting machines in Democratic strongholds, the only legal process that could immediately address some of these concerns is a recount. ...
There is a tremendous need for a plausible explanation of what actually happened on Election Day in Ohio. Kerry's Wednesday morning concession pre-emptied that explanation.
"Many people are saying, why bother to do this? The answer is we have not gathered all the facts," Arnebeck said. "Until you recount the votes, and look at the possibility of a sophisticated computer fix, you cannot draw conclusions.
Or, to quote some more of The Nation writer that I used last time:
The public does deserve any information that would allow it to evaluate vote-counting. Beyond that, extensive election reform is necessary. Electronic voting ought to produce a paper trail that can be examined. There should be national standards for voting systems and for verifying vote tallies. And vote counters should be nonpartisan public servants, not secretive corporations or party hacks. The system ought to be so solid that no one would have cause even to wonder whether an election has been stolen.
I know it is hard to get past partisan concerns, and as a comment on this blog suggested the matter clearly has partisan implications, but ultimately it boils down to the fundamental right to vote. A right that is at the heart of our democracy as suggested by the fact that seven amendments have something to do with voting, four in particular having special racial implications.*
As suggested by a local race in Florida that was decided by coin flip (a recount didn't break the tie), vote counts will always have some degree of controversy. Close elections and those that use new election procedures (provisional ballots) and technology (computerized voting) will only have more. Thus, there is an important bipartisan need to bend over backwards to ensure that the people trust elections. We doublecheck and have redundant protections in much less important areas. And, if the end result is clear (little doubt who won), there really should be that much more incentive for both sides to work together to do this. After all, what does the winners have to lose? Their legitimacy will only rise.
It is true that some realize their legitimacy is somewhat in doubt. But, there are enough that think otherwise, including those who are too sure that there are no problems or fear the cost, to hope that there is some chance people across the political spectrum will see the light. The issue at hand is just too important to let things continue in such a haphazard way, just waiting for the shit to truly hit the fan ... again.
---
* The Fourteenth Amendment has a never used provision dealing with punishing those that deprive groups of the right to vote. The Fifteenth bars discrimination by race, the Seventeeth sets up direct election of senators, the Nineteenth bars discrimination by sex, the Twenty-Third allows those in D.C. (large minority population) to vote for President, the Twenty-Fourth bars poll taxes in federal elections (the Supreme Court barred it in state elections soon after), and the Twenty-Sixth set the minimum age to vote at eighteen. One might toss in the Twelfth, which re-arranged the Electoral College.