The vote-count debacle in Florida last year
has done some good. Important points that few people ever thought
much about before are being brought to light. For example, voting
mechanisms are available that allow voters to review their ballots
and change their votes before leaving the polling place, in case
anything has gone wrong. Some mechanisms can also prevent people
from ruining their ballots by casting two votes where one is called
for.
So why shouldn't such systems be adopted?
When the Florida debacle occurred, some people blamed the
punch-card system, wherein voters punch holes on a paper ballot and
turn the card in. Others said, with considerable justification, that
even if the punch card system was the problem, that didn't mean that
punch cards need to be replaced. Maybe voters just need to be better
educated about how to use the system, and machines have to be in
better repair, and ballots have to be designed more carefully.
But the punch-card system doesn't have to be seen as a villain
for a case to be made for progressing to a system that has more
fail-safe mechanisms and more voter conveniences.
Nobody knows how many people would make alterations to their
ballots once a system alerted them to the fact that they had, say,
skipped some races. But common sense suggests that such conveniences
would come in handy for a lot people.
Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, is
trying to get Ohio to move beyond punch cards, which a big majority
of counties now use. Give him credit for taking on a tough case. For
many Republicans, all this talk of reform smacks of Democratic sour
grapes over 2000. He sometimes sounds to partisans like he's giving
aid and comfort to the enemy.
State Sen. Jeff Jacobson, R-Brookville, serves on a
Blackwell-chaired commission that is trying to put together a
recommendation for the state legislature. He has emerged as
Secretary Blackwell's main opponent. He argues that Ohio's systems
have not malfunctioned.
In fact, though, the main difference between Ohio and Florida may
be that Ohio has had no such paper-thin election and has, therefore,
come under no such scrutiny.
The commission is past its deadline (not a terribly important
one) and is still split. Maybe some good can come from the division,
as the two main advocates seek votes. Secretary Blackwell is not
insisting that the commission promote a specific new system, only
that it promote such goals as the ability to revise a ballot. Sen.
Jacobson is saying he doesn't oppose change so much as a mandate
from Columbus. He says the counties should have options.
In the end, money should be no object. The cost of a complete
transition to a new system could be something like $70 million over
some years.
The Florida debacle cast great doubt on the legitimacy of very
close election outcomes. And it highlighted that an awful lot of
voter intentions aren't being counted for one reason or another.
Elimination of that cloud over American elections would be well
worth the money. The feds might put up the money. If they don't, the
state should.
[From the Dayton
Daily News: 10.11.2001]
Home | Opinion
index | Help
Start
delivery
