Iceberg Ahead in Florida
April 20, 2002
By Interfan
democraticunderground.com
The unsinkable ship, better known as the Florida Democratic Party, has set a course that could
lead to a scramble for the life boats if party leaders continue to ignore the impending iceberg
warnings. The warnings have come in the latest polls showing that Janet Reno will win the
Democratic nomination by a comfortable margin over the party-anointed Bill McBride. Still, the
party does not take these warnings seriously and continues full steam ahead to the upcoming
collision of a Reno victory. Rather than change course by returning to a neutral position in the
primary or backing the likely winner, they continue an increase in speed by rallying even more
behind McBride. This they hope will get them to port and the Governor's mansion safe and
sound. Unfortunately, their plan will send the ship slowly beneath the waves and another four
years of a corrupt and punishing Bush Administration.
The Florida Democratic Party is demonstrating rather effectively that they are out of touch with
their constituents. Many active within the party are failing to understand that the Democratic
voter is more New Democrat than traditional Democrat, as demonstrated by the failure of
McBride to improve in the latest polls. Meanwhile, Reno is maintaining her numbers campaigning
as a populist and outsider. With New Democrat credentials, she continues to out maneuver not
only McBride's handlers but also the bulk of the Democratic Party leadership as well.
At the state Democratic convention, one attendee remarked that Reno had no organization to
speak of to a reporter, yet for all of McBride's organization, he still hasn't caught the attention of
voting Democrats the way Reno has. The large amount of cash raised might not be enough for
McBride to win without going negative against Reno. In that case, he will be providing a free
service to Governor Jeb Bush whose coffers are bursting at the rim. Such negative attacks will
allow for issues to be legitimately exploited by Republicans who will claim that they are only
using issues raised during the primary.
Third party attacks on Reno help McBride but have not been effective in the upcoming primary,
which is most likely why Jeb Bush threw a fit when he learned about them. His strategy would
have been to employ those tactics after Reno won the nomination to boost his margin of victory.
The third party attacks also might ignite McBride's stagnating campaign and win the nomination
-- a scenario that Bush does not favor. Another problem with such attacks is that if they fail,
Bush will have a real campaign battle on his hands in which he will have to defend his disgraceful
record. Reno, who seems immune to such negative attacks so far, is underestimated by Bush
and thought to be the easier opponent. Such underestimation of Reno's populist appeal by both
the party and opposition is why Reno is in a better position to win than McBride.
Why is the party leadership failing to recognize their destruction at the hands of a Reno victory?
Like the Captain of the unsinkable ship, arrogance and one bad decision followed by another
bad decision. The belief in their abilities to sway the Democratic voters seems to permeate every
decision made. They sense that there is a large undecided block of voters in the panhandle and
northeast part of the state will hand victory to the unknown McBride rather than the known
candidate Reno. It is practiced experience that tells them this at the time, but in the near future it
will be seen as folly whether or not Bush wins reelection.
If Reno wins the nomination, she will become the leader of the state Democratic Party up to the
election. If Reno wins, whoever is leader of the Democrats will be the Captain of a sunken ship
and not in a position to organize the Party for the election. Reno will have her own crew and if
she wins, she can force a reorganization of the Florida Democratic Party. Therefore the Florida
Democratic Party will be reluctant to assist in their demise by helping Reno win the race against
Bush. They may think it is better to remain in control of the party than to win the Governor's
race.
So after the collision with iceberg and the unsinkable ship begins to take on water, rest assured
that unlike the real Titanic, the officers and captain will have lowered their own lifeboat long
before the unsinkable sinks. They will most likely be planning the course for the next ship they
will command while the rest of the crew and band play and sing as they go beneath the waves.
The author is a lifelong Floridian and Democratic Party member who resides in the
unfashionable Northeastern part of the state.
---------------------------------------
[Wharf Rat, I stand corrected in the general statement, however, I can' see myself manning a poll station in a Democratic party primary in San Diego county <g>! Also, unless I am further mistaken, Broward and Miami-Dade are Democratic Party strongholds. I thought the state election guru was also a Democrat. If there was negligence in training poll workers,etc., in these two counties, would not the local party officials have some responsibility?
Be that as it may, it appears from this article that the state Democratic party was far from united around Reno and perhaps were less vigorous in watching the election preparations in those counties. I agree with the Florida Democratic party. I don't think Reno has the clout nationally that you think she has...too much baggage. McBride is a vet and I have a few old veteran friends who vote single issue...is he a vet?
Only on Jim's Porch could we get by with this, but I have another article that, had I taken the time, I would have found and posted to Ray instead of the unsubstantiated post I made. Read the following. This is a gentleman's view. Did Murphy's Law prevail. When has it not? ....Ciao!.....jj ]
------------------------
FLORIDA STRIKES AGAIN:
What The Latest Election Snafu Says About Machines And Humans
By MICHAEL C. DORF
writ.news.findlaw.com
Wednesday, Sep. 18, 2002
In the aftermath of the disputed 2000 Presidential election, Democrats
lionized the Florida Supreme Court, vilified the U.S. Supreme Court, and
complained about a legal system that did not accurately record the intent of the voters.
Republicans, for their part, vilified the Florida Supreme Court, lionized the U.S. Supreme
Court, and complained about the subjective process by which ballots designed to be
read by machine were to be held up to the light by human beings.
Once the wrangling was over, members of both parties moved swiftly to eliminate what
they thought was the underlying cause of the problem: antiquated machinery for
recording and reading ballots. In many Florida counties, touch-screens resembling
automatic teller machines replaced punch cards.
With software that asked voters to confirm their choices, the new machinery, it was
thought, would avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of over-votes and under-votes. And so it
did--more or less. In most counties that moved to the new system, poll workers and
voters reported high levels of satisfaction.
Most, but alas, not all.
What Went Wrong in The Recent Election, and Why There Won't Be A Recount
In numerous precincts in Miami Dade County and other parts of south Florida, the new
equipment arrived late and had to be reprogrammed very close to the primary. That
might have been all right, except that in these precincts, the election workers received
inadequate training in the operation of the high-tech machinery, so that when problems
arose, poll workers could not respond. As a result, thousands of votes were either not
counted or counted inaccurately.
That too would have been all right, except that Florida, land of sunshine and close
elections, produced another near-tie. In the Democratic gubernatorial primary, Bill
McBride received 44.5 percent of the vote, Janet Reno garnered 43.9 percent, and Daryl
Jones recorded 11.6 percent.
McBride's initial margin of 0.6 percent over Reno was just enough to avoid a mandatory
recount--which occurs whenever the top two candidates are within a half a percentage
point of one another. Recounting of Miami Dade County ballots over the weekend
reduced McBride's margin to 0.4 percent. Nevertheless, as this essay goes to press, the
Reno campaign--still facing a deficit of over five thousand votes--appears unlikely to
challenge the final certification that is expected today, September 18.
Thus, Floridians will be spared the anguish--or perhaps farce would be a better
description--of replaying the events of 2000. They can now concentrate on the general
election pitting McBride against incumbent Jeb Bush, and hope that that contest
produces a decisive winner.
Meanwhile, those of us who live and vote outside of Florida can ask what lessons this
latest fiasco teaches.
Lesson One: Democracy Really is Just Another Government Program
During and after the 2000 Presidential election dispute, numerous observers remarked
that our electoral machinery was badly under-funded. For years, they noted, states and
localities had been getting by on outdated technology and largely untrained volunteer
election workers. If we want an election system that works, the observers noted, we
will have to pony up some serious cash.
The critics certainly had a point. Elections don't run themselves. Like every other
government program, they require resources to run effectively.
However, some of the critics went further, arguing that improving the mechanics of our
electoral system should be the number one priority of government. Because elections
are what give government legitimacy in a democracy, the critics charged, running them
smoothly must precede all other government tasks.
Yet, spending on electoral machinery can justifiably be required to compete with other
government priorities. Certainly, survival as a society must rank at least as high as
ensuring an accurate electoral count. That is why, despite Warren Christopher's lament
in a New York Times Op-Ed over the weekend, it is perfectly understandable that "[t]he
attacks of Sept. 11 deflected attention from everything that was not connected to
national security."
And once one acknowledges that national security can sometimes take priority over
electoral accuracy, it is difficult to see why spending on other matters--such as
environmental protection, medical care, and education--should not also be given priority
at some point.
None of this is to say that Florida was justified in the inadequate level of training it
provided its poll workers, or that Congress should not act on the currently pending
election reform bills that former Secretary of State Christopher favors. Such measures
may well be cost-justified, even taking account of other worthy, non-election-related
programs. But it is a mistake to think that our electoral machinery must be rendered
perfect before we can turn our attention to any other matters.
Lesson Two: Nobody, and Nothing, is Perfect
And that brings me to the second lesson: It is impossible to design an electoral system
that will perfectly measure every vote in every election. Even machines with no moving
parts can malfunction because of power outages or software bugs. And when they do,
fallible human beings will need to intercede.
The right question to ask is not: how can we make the system foolproof? Rather, the
right question is: how can we ensure that the inevitable errors are tolerably small, and
not systematically skewed against a particular candidate, party, or social group?
In the 2000 Presidential fight, each side had an appealing battle cry. The Gore team
said "Count every vote," while the Bush crowd replied "Don't introduce human
subjectivity." Neither slogan was realistic.
Given the inevitability of error, it is impossible to count every vote perfectly accurately.
But at the same time, it is also impossible to avoid human subjectivity. For example,
even a well-programmed computer system will have to allow for write-in votes, leading
to the necessity of some human being deciphering handwriting.
And even a computer system that allows "write-in" voting by the entering of a name on
a keypad will allow for spelling errors, which will then call for some human judgment. (If
you think write-ins are an irrelevancy, take a look at Washington, D.C., where last
week, thanks to a write-in campaign, incumbent Mayor Anthony Williams won the
Democratic party primary by a 3-to-1 margin, despite not having his name on the ballot
due to petition irregularities.)
To err is human, and humans both construct and operate election machinery. We must
therefore accept both the inevitability of some error and of some element of subjectivity
in coping with that error.
Lesson Three: Sometimes There's No Such Thing as a "Real" Winner
Finally, there is a radical and unsettling lesson to be taken from both the 2000
Presidential election and the latest Florida foul-up: In a very close election, and
certainly in one in which the margin of error is larger than the apparent margin of
victory, the idea that there is a single "winner" is a social construction--a necessary
fiction.
It is tempting to think that the answer to the question of who got more votes in an
election is a question about the natural world of the same order as "Is the moon made
of cheese?" or "How tall is Mount Everest?" But in fact, these are different sorts of
questions.
The composition of the moon and the height of Mount Everest are facts in themselves
that would exist regardless of whether we attempted to measure them. (I know, some
postmodernists disagree, but I feel comfortable putting aside their objections for now.)
By contrast, an election does not exist independently of our attempt to measure it.
Granted, an election is itself an attempt to measure something: the public will. But the
public will is itself a constantly-changing, slippery phenomenon. In every election,
substantial numbers of voters do not make up their minds until the waning days of the
campaign; numerous voters don't even decide until they are actually in the election
booth.
Of course, once the election has taken place, we can ask how many voters voted for
candidate X and how many for Y, but the answer to that question depends on
contested issues. Did a voter vote for Gore if she went into the booth intending to vote
for Gore but accidentally voted for Buchanan? What if she intended to vote for Reno but
was precluded from voting because of a two-hour line at the poll, itself the product of a
malfunctioning machine? What if she wrote in but misspelled the name of her favorite
candidate?
A well-designed electoral system will try not only to minimize errors, but also to
anticipate and resolve in advance the sorts of questions likely to arise in a closely
contested and inevitably flawed election. However, as any legislative draftsman knows,
it is simply impossible to anticipate every possible error in advance. That is not a reason
not to try, but it is a reason to think that we have not heard the last call for a
recount--and probably never will.
Michael C. Dorf is Professor of Law at Columbia University. |
