Congress
Debates the Election Results in Ohio
The Thursday, January 6, 2005 challenge
of the Ohio vote was never likely to change the outcome of the election, but it
brought to light the irregularities that threaten democracy at home, even as we
supposedly support democracy in Ukraine, and send our youngest to fight and die
for it in Iraq.
The high turn out in November was a
hopeful sign for true democracy. Voting
among younger voters did substantially increase, but was matched by other grass
roots efforts such that their percentage of the vote did not increase. They were the one age group among voters who
did support Kerry, presuming the final count was accurate.
Opinions vary on the efficacy of the
election, from saying it was truly fair to saying it was a fix. We will likely never know the whole
truth. My assessment is, it was a
tainted election, just based on so much information among those who voted for
Bush. They either had misinformation
about Iraq, Kerry, or maybe just hoped Bush would be different in a second
term. So, even if every vote had been
acurately counted, and the result was as it turned out, I would question
it. I personally think the Bush
election team went out of their way to capitalize on misinformation, fear and
division, in order to get elected. That
is not a victory to be admired, or to be proud of. It does not reflect to will of the people. Add to that the irregularities in key
states, with touch screen irregularities, punch cards that yield a high percent
of discarded votes, vote challenges to likely Democratic voters, misinformation
about voting places that led to discarding provisional votes, and you can't
help but conclude that the election was closer.
A key issue in the years ahead, will be
reforming how we cast and count our votes, so that there can be no doubt about
the outcome, when the final vote is counted, and the results certified. This is more important than doing away with
the electoral college, for now. I
believe we need a bipartisan, public sector process as Thom Hartmann has
said. Adequate compensation for those
perform these tasks is a part of that.
But when a partisan State
official, who also chairs the election effort of a candidate in that
state, makes the final call on the vote's certification, it does not encourage
faith in the result? When the touch
screen voting machines are designed by a company who executives pledge their
support to a certain candidate, how can we trust their fairness? When likely Republican voters only have a
short wait in line, and are not challenged on their legal right to vote, while
people of color in poorer areas, likely to vote Democrat, wait for hours to vote, and may get
challenged by partisans, and are more likely to have their votes discarded, due
to an antique punch card system, and Republcans are in charge of the decisions
that brought this about, what are we left to think?
All these problems can be remedied, and
would be in a truly free society. Or
better yet, they would never have come about in the first place. Each state should have a non-partisan
committee, co-chaired with
representatives from at least both major parties, who have responsibility for
certifying a state's vote. Touch screen
machines should be legally required to have a paper trail for recount purposes,
but they have to be more accurate, and
again not inspected or serviced by those with a specific partisan agenda. Punch card balloting should be replaced with
something that results in less discarded votes. There has to be enough voting booths, staff and other resources
to assure we don't wait more than 15 minutes to vote. We could develop secure ways of voting by phone or online, as
well. We could also have a two week
election period, including weekends and evenings, rather than one day, so that
early voting becomes the norm. Election
day will become like April 15 is for taxes, it will simply be the
deadline. We have two and half months
to pay our income taxes, why relegate voting to one day? The non partisan committee I mentioned,
should also prevent and investigate any irregularities, and function
independently from any current State Administration. They should not serve at the pleasure of any current or past Governor. These are just a few ideas.
Those who have questioned
the election results have been relegated by some as on the fringe. Those critics love to attack Michael Moore
as a conspirator. As with any
controversy that has elements of a conspiracy theory, those who question the
status quo explanation are usually made to look ridiculous. When Oliver Stone made his film about the
JFK assassination, it was immediately followed by a book that concluded beyond
a doubt, that Oswald was a lone assasin, despite Congressional hearings in the
late 70's that concluded otherwise.
Yet, at that time, 3 out of 4 Americans did not accept the Warren
Commission notion of a lone assassin, magic bullet and all, courtesy of Arlen
Specter. Now, Arlen gets all the
support he needs from conservative Republicans, inspite of his tendency to
function in a more moderate, bipartisan, Chair, who respects and includes
Senator Leahy in the hearings process.
Is this pay back? Add that to
your conspiracy theories!