November 13, 2000
Gore Challenge Undermines
U.S. Democracy
By William J. Bennett, a co-director of Empower America.
Al Gore's transparent efforts to overturn election results that are
unfavorable to him are doing terrible and lasting damage to the nation he
has spent most of his adult life hoping to lead.
As everybody knows by now, George W. Bush last week won the
unofficial recount in Florida. Tomorrow, Florida Secretary of State
Katherine Harris is scheduled to announce the official ballot results from all
67 counties; by Friday the state will tabulate ballots cast by Floridians
overseas. The evidence indicated that last Tuesday's results would be
upheld.
But as everybody also knows, the Gore campaign began a massive
campaign to subvert this outcome, including its most recent effort to insist
on a manual recount in four predominantly Democratic counties. Gore
campaign chairman William Daley has even suggested that unless Al Gore
is awarded victory in Florida, the election will be illegitimate. "If the will of
the people is to prevail," Mr. Daley said, "Al Gore should be awarded a
victory in Florida and be our next president."
To clarify some matters raised last week: The chief complaint made by the
Gore campaign consists of the charge that the butterfly ballot in Palm
Beach County is "deceptive, misleading and confusing," and led many
people to mistakenly vote for Pat Buchanan. Yet butterfly ballots have long
been used without challenge. County Supervisor of Elections Theresa
LePore, a Democrat, designed the ballots to make reading them easier for
the county's elderly population. The ballots were sent out long before the
election, approved by both parties and printed in advance in newspapers.
No complaints were raised.
There is nothing deceptive about the ballot (it has been used in places like
Cook County in Illinois, the home of Mr. Daley) and no credible judge in
America would find merit in the Palm Beach challenge. If the ballot was as
confusing as the Gore campaign asserts, Mr. Buchanan would have won
far more than 3,400 votes out of the more than 400,000 cast.
As for the charge that 19,000 ballots in Palm Beach county were
disqualified because more than one candidate was selected, there are two
points to be made. First, a similarly high number of ballots was disqualified
from the same county in 1996 (and 143,000 total state ballots were
disqualified); and second, every jurisdiction in America discards ballots
where two different candidates are selected.
When citizens enter a voting booth we have the right to assume they will
take the time necessary to understand the ballot and vote for only one
candidate. To throw out an election based on the carelessness of a small
fraction of the voting public would lead to chaos.
But something else must be said. Since last Tuesday's election, we are
seeing something unmistakable. It is the continuation of a persistent pattern
that has characterized the Clinton-Gore years: the willingness to undermine
constitutional government and place partisan political interests ahead of the
good of the nation. In this instance, the Gore campaign is resorting to
unprecedented tactics to ensure that its man becomes president.
What is at stake here is something far more important than the political
futures of Albert Arnold Gore Jr. and George Walker Bush. This is a
deeply significant moment for American constitutional government, and one
fraught with peril.
Our democracy depends on people abiding by certain unwritten rules. One
of them has been that presidential candidates who lose an election do not
contest the loss unless there is evidence of massive fraud and abuse (which
is clearly not the case in this election). If those unwritten rules are violated,
it sets in motion events that could precipitate an authentic political crisis.
If the Gore campaign continues down this road, it will establish precedents.
Do we really want to get into the habit of contesting every state that is
decided by a razor-thin margin? Do we want to arrive at a point where, in
a close campaign, the losing candidate reverts to challenge after challenge?
Is it healthy for our nation to endlessly search for voter grievances? Do we
want to make it a commonplace practice for losing candidates to resort to
manual recounts of counties that are favorable to them? Is it a good idea to
force winning candidates to take actions they would rather not, so they can
preserve their victories? There would be no end point to such challenges.
Regrettably, and recklessly, during the past 100 hours the Gore campaign
has begun to poison the wellspring of American democracy. We are
beginning to see the early consequences: street demonstrations, protests,
increasing acrimony and bitterness. Things will only get worse, far worse, if
they prolong this ordeal. To use a favorite Gore campaign phrase, "You
ain't seen nothing yet."
Forty years ago, Richard Nixon had a far more compelling reason than
Mr. Gore to challenge the 1960 election results, since we know fraud in
Chicago and Texas helped swing the election to John Kennedy. But Nixon
refused to challenge the results; the morning after the election he conceded.
Nixon has been universally praised -- including by many liberals and
Democrats -- for his gesture. He put his nation above his own ambitions.
The same can be said of Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft, who last week
graciously conceded defeat rather than pursue a court challenge after losing
to a deceased candidate.
But Mr. Gore has chosen a different path. Every day, it seems, he and his
lieutenants pull a new trick out of their bag, challenge settled practices, and
issue irresponsible threats and baseless accusations. The end game is clear:
to throw sand in the machinery of democracy and destabilize American
presidential politics. I hope, and still believe, these efforts will fail. But
whether they do or not, Mr. Gore is well on his way to earning the scorn of
his countrymen and a harsh verdict from history. |
