Kakki wrote:
> Richard Daley, Jr.s (Gore's sampaign manager and spokesman) precinct also
> used a "butterfly" ballot. How ironic! All I will say as far as the
Bill Daley (Richard's his brother, the mayor) is Gore's campaign chair
(not manager, but that's an irrelevant distinction here). The ballots in
Chicago are butterfly ballots, BUT the holes for no offices were
interspersed with each other in the way they were in FL, with the
exception of the judge retentions where one votes yes or no for each judge
up. That part was quite confusing, I have to say, but not unworkable.
While all this hoo-ha can be annoying, particularly in a country where
we're used to knowing much more quickly (precisely BECAUSE of media
projections before final vote counts, I'd add), I do think it's important
to remember that the only institutionalized force we have to keep
elections honest is the losing party. While all the allegations may not
be true, relevant, etc., it is VITAL to our long-term belief in our
democracy that our elections, though necessarily imperfect, are as fair as
possible. And the only watchdog who will make that happen will be the
losing party.
As for the electoral college, axing it would shift balances dramatically,
but not so much to big states as to big media markets, which represent
people who do not necessarily share the same interests/beliefs (urban vs.
suburban, etc.). There is no doubt, however, that rural folk would likely
lose out unless they voted as a group, which is something to weigh very
seriously before making a change. That said, even under the current
system they largely DO vote as a group (Republican).
This whole event (it is not a "crisis") SHOULD cause us to seriously
reexamine a lot about how we conduct elections, but there SHOULD NOT be
rash, ill-considered change because of it.
--Michael
