Though (like in 1988) an elector switched the names of the Democratic candidates, the meeting of the Electoral College was much less controversial this year than last time around. Not to say there was no controversy, especially given problems arising in Florida and Ohio, especially Ohio:
In Columbus, bipartisan estimates say that 5,000 to 15,000 frustrated voters turned away without casting ballots. ... But similar problems occurred across the state and fueled protest marches and demands for a recount. The foul-ups appeared particularly acute in Democratic-leaning districts, according to interviews with voters, poll workers, election observers and election board and party officials, as well as an examination of precinct voting patterns in several cities.
Richard Hasen, whose election blog is much recommended, found this Washington Post article a must read. I see his point. Let's put aside the possibility of truly large scale problems that certain serious individuals find worthy to be worried about. The article puts forth some serious problems that lead to legitimate concerns for many, and probably should worry a lot more. This is so even though the net result will not change the election, probably even if they all were truly investigated.
But, just think: the official count, put forth long after "Election Day," increased Sen. Kerry's count by over seventeen thousand. Likewise, out of Ohio's 156,977 provisional ballots, about four in five, or 121,598 ballots, were ruled valid. Though a statewide race in Washington is ongoing, the idea that anything serious would occur after Election Day is still likely seen as ridiculous. But, what if Ohio was 1/20th as close as Florida in 2000 (aka twenty times less close)?
Would waiting for the provisional ballot count (which some argued would be mostly worthless) or factoring in certain problems that were fixed be acceptable now, even if it took a few weeks or even a month? Many four years screamed that waiting that long was a sign of sore losership. Has times changed? After all, "punch-card ballots are used in 69 of 88 Ohio counties, representing nearly 73 percent of registered voters. About 92,000 ballots cast in last month's presidential election failed to record a vote for president, most on punch-card systems." And, a federal district court judge found using such ballots fine.
The Washington Post story quoted earlier suggests Ohio is sadly repeating some of the problems of Florida 2000. For instance, political factors encouraged many more black voters to go to the polls in Florida, which helped to overload the system. Increasing voter turnout should be a good thing in a democracy, such as when more than 5.7 million Ohioans voted, 900,000 more voters than in 2000.
But proper preparation for such a turnout, far from surprising in such a "battleground state," was not in place. This included not enough machines, long lines, and other problems. And, since low income (often black) precincts tend to be negatively effected (or especially appear to be because of mistrust, aggravated by some distasteful activity), this occurs:
Most senior state officials, Republican and Democratic alike, tend to play down the anger. National Democrats -- including the chief counsel for Kerry's campaign in Ohio -- say they expect the recount to confirm Bush's victory.
But that official view contrasts sharply with the bubbling anger heard among rank-and-file Democrats. While some promote conspiratorial theories, most have a straightforward bottom line. "A lot of people left in the four hours I waited," recalled Thivener, the mortgage broker from Columbus. "A lot of them were young black men who were saying over and over: 'We knew this would happen.'
"How," she asked, "is that good for democracy?"
The almost bored response by national Democrats suggests why some people (like me) felt there was a certain lack of true energy and passion to the campaign. As someone told me as to a separate matter, the administration are fighters, though their ferocity promotes things we might find quite distasteful. As Maxwell Smart might say, if only such passion was used for the forces of good. For instance, even if the net result was the same, this should not be taken in stride by national Democrats:
Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, who was co-chairman of the Bush campaign in Ohio, decided to strictly interpret a state law governing provisional ballots. He ruled that voters must cast provisional ballots not merely in the county but in the precise precinct where they reside. For cities such as Cleveland and Cincinnati, where officials long accepted provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, the ruling promised to disqualify many voters. "It is a headache to take those ballots, but the alternative is disenfranchisement," said Michael Vu, director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, which includes Cleveland.
The Kerry Campaign spoke about "counting every vote," but then quickly conceded (without even underlining the importance of dealing with the difficulties, which weren't even fully known about mid-morning November 3) once doing so was found not likely to help them.
Kerry lawyers did do something to deal with the issue afterwards, but it was up to minor parties to force a recount. Others were allowed to question why the Kerry Campaign had money left in their campaign chest. And so on. Sigh. Is it up to others or only local Democrats to force the issue in Ohio, when thousands or maybe tens of thousands (quite possible) of votes are at issue? Not quite, given the efforts of Rep. Conyers and others (opening statement by Jesse Jackson, however, suggested a certain lack of "official" flavor to the hearings).
Until we truly care about protecting the core right of democracy, a vote we can count on, democracy itself is in some sense rightly shown to be a sham.