Electoral system needs improvement again

Miami Herald   31 October 2004

OUR OPINION: ELECTIONS SHOULD BE DECIDED BY VOTERS, NOT LAWYERS

 

Americans enjoy a bare-knuckled political fight, but this year's mud-slinging contests are a discredit to the electoral process. Attack ads and negative campaigns have come to dominate the process. They tarnish anyone daring to aspire to a position of leadership. This is particularly evident in a presidential race ruled by fear and the ominous suggestion that doom awaits voters if they make the wrong choice. Is this any way to choose the leader of the most powerful nation in the world?

System must inspire trust

The question is particularly relevant because armies of lawyers are poised to jump into the post-electoral fray. The reasons for the expected avalanche of litigation include: a very tight race; lingering resentment over the outcome of the 2000 election; doubts about the integrity of the voting process; and the political passions inspired by the notion that this is an election of unprecedented importance.

The most regrettable aspect involves the failure to institute a voting system that inspires trust rather than doubt. Surely, responsible officials could have done more to craft a uniform voting process for Florida well before this election season. They failed. Instead, some voters will have a paper trail and others will not. In some counties, registrars are processing incomplete voter-registration forms; in other counties, they aren't. Different machines are in use in different places.

Did state officials forget that in reaching its monumental decision in Bush vs. Gore four years ago regarding Florida's vote, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed concern that the absence of uniformity undermines due process and equal protection? Granted, Florida's system isn't designed to deliver statewide uniformity just the opposite, given the latitude and authority vested in 67 county elections supervisors but neither Gov. Jeb Bush nor the Legislature can escape a measure of responsibility for this failure.

At this late date, there isn't much to be done, but improvements must be enacted before the next election cycle. Otherwise, the actual voting process will become only a precursor to the litigation phase of the election where the real decision will be made. This not only deepens the polarization of the electorate but also injures U.S. democracy.

The candidates themselves, most important the ultimate winner, will have a responsibility as well to put the national interest above partisan agendas. This means not pursuing electoral litigation beyond reasonable limits and accepting the final outcome with grace.

Cynicism and apathy

Unless the outcome is a blowout, which no one expects, the next president must understand the need to govern from the political center in an effort to bring the nation together. This will require leadership in Congress, and new thinking, to avoid partisan gridlock.

Ultimately, negative campaigns leave voters bewildered and questioning whether any candidate merits their trust. This breeds cynicism and apathy. Two days before the election, it should be remembered that among the indispensable virtues of a functioning democracy are goodwill, patience, forbearance, compromise and restraint.

If these words sound odd in the prevailing political climate downright naive, in fact it's a measure of how far adrift we have strayed from the firm moorings of civil discourse. This is both a symptom of political decay and a formula for national decline.