Hey Gore, give it up

For about three days after the election, I wasn't too mad at Al Gore. The election was close, and I didn't blame him for turning around his motorcade and canceling his concession speech. Until the mandatory recount, we didn't know whether he had really lost. A recount was the right thing to do, and, as it turns out, he lost it. Since then, the absurdity of his strategies and arguments has given credit to the signs that read "Sore-Loserman."

His first misstep came when he attempted to second-guess and misrepresent voter intent on Florida's questionable ballots. If a ballot is marked in some way but fails to register on the machine, that ballot at least demands further investigation—on this, Gore is right. Yet in his attempt to serve his own ends rather than those of justice, he imposes an inappropriate standard—one just as blind to voter intent as was the initial machine count. The only way to determine a voter's intent is to look at the marks he himself made. If a voter punched any hole all the way through, that is the best possible indication that he understood the instructions. A full punch, then, should be the standard against which other marks are judged, and this procedure is the one supported by Governor George Bush, DC '68, and the Republicans.

It should be no surprise that Gore is willing to ignore individual differences in an effort to further his own agenda. I should expect as much from a vigorous proponent of statistical census sampling. The Democrats are at it again, seeking to "improve upon" the election results through the use of "statistical analysis." The very concept of using statistics to determine voter intent is ridiculous. That's what the ballots are for. If the statistical analyst intends to argue that a voter marked a ballot in error, he needs to present an alternative showing what the person intended instead—otherwise, there is no standard for comparison. Yet the voting process was designed expressly to make such second-guessing impossible. The purpose of a secret ballot is to let a voter make his decision independently of other citizens' opinions and prejudices. The result is that the only way to determine a voter's intent is to examine each and every individual ballot. To subject the vote count to statistical analysis is to judge the individual on the terms of the community, according to an idealized and partisan standard. And even if "irregularities" are judged with respect to a previous judgment of the people, that standard will defeat the purpose of the vote. Public opinion changes—this is why we have new elections. If it were static, we would elect leaders for life. If it shifted according to some predetermined formula, we would not bother with the election. If we are to elect our officials, voters' marks should be the final and only word.

I know the reply: people were confused and deceived by the butterfly ballot, so we can't be sure of their intentions. My answer is twofold. First, as I stated above, looking at the ballot is the best indication we have, even if some voters err. Second, to the voters that were deceived; this is your problem. If you care enough to vote, you should care enough to read and follow the instructions, and they really aren't that hard. If my parents speak the truth, I have less common sense than most people in this world, yet I was able to comprehend this ballot in all of four and a half seconds—even when CNN.com didn't include the instructions along with the sample ballot. Find your candidate, find his arrow, follow the arrow, punch the stylus. Even if you ignore the arrow initially, you should see it as you're about to punch the hole next to it, and if that arrow comes from a box reading "Pat Buchanan," that should tell you something. Now, I realize that there are people who can't fill out a ballot but still deserve the franchise. Take, for instance, the visually or physically impaired. They know of their difficulties, and if they need an alternative method, they need only let the election officials know. Likewise, if you can't understand the ballot your county uses, ask for a write-in ballot. If you stick with the one you can't comprehend, you are knowingly taking chances with your vote. If you choose to sign a contract with fine print you know you can't read, you should be responsible for the consequences anyway, and this scenario is no different.

So what do these considerations amount to in terms of procedure? Al Gore deserved a hand count of each "undervote," vote by vote. That's what he got—and except for a county whose recount favored Bush with some 1,000 votes to go, it is over, and Bush still won. Al Gore should quit trying to second guess the voters, and those voters who screwed up should live with their mistakes. I would advise him to give up and return to Tennessee without embarrassing himself further, but apparently he is no longer welcome in the home state we share. Where will he go from here? I don't know for sure, but I have a good imagination, and Al Gore would look downright classy in a saffron robe.

Back to Opinion...