Election Solutions Needed

by Molly Ivins

On behalf of beleaguered election officials everywhere -- who wrestle with outdated equipment, understaffed polling places, cheap county commissioners, geriatric helpers (bless their hearts) and an endless set of other travails -- let us strike while the iron is hot and do something about the way we run elections.

For example, invest in a first-rate system. Voting is so far down on the list of political priorities that it normally can't get the attention of a pothole. If you have ever watched a county commission try to decide on a new voting system, you already know this is not simple. Pencil? Punch? Lever? Electronic?

With all due respect to ex-Secretary of State James Baker's argument that machines are more objective than humans (all people making all arguments are open to instantaneous change in this situation), there's quite a distinguished history of problems with machine balloting and counting. I know reporters who have worked for years on the theory that some of the machines are rigged. My own preference is to put pen to paper, indicating technophobia.

Long experience with computers ("This machine has just performed an illegal act") leads me to dread the day that we venture into that brave new world. Ever seen a polling operation that wasn't cheesy? Not that we would want anything in government to be deluxe, but our elections reek of cheap. We can do better.

Apart from the usual problems of dead people voting and who-lives-where, there were lots of complaints around the country from people who had registered to vote while getting a driver's license (the new "motor-voter" laws) and showed up at the polls, only to be informed that they weren't on the list. Let us charitably assume that this happened because various motor vehicle departments are not yet accustomed to forwarding voter registrations to the appropriate office. But the fact is that many of the citizens so denied the vote are of the minority persuasion, and good luck in convincing them that it was all inadvertent.

Glad to see that the old chestnut Reforming-the-Electoral-College, a perennial in good-government and high-school debate circles, is finally a hot topic. Conventional wisdom holds that it can't be done because the college gives the small states such an advantage that they would never approve the constitutional amendment required to change it.

The New York Times did an analysis of the effect of the Electoral College on this election and found that a vote in Alaska or Vermont counted for more than twice as much as a vote in Texas or Massachusetts. Those who thought we had settled the matter of one-person/one-vote some time ago must be startled.

President Clinton, who's no mean student of politics and government in this country, said the other day that abolition of the Electoral College would not necessarily lead to neglect of the small states by candidates -- if the popular vote is decisive, candidates will be inclined to campaign in every state, hoping to pick up a few more votes here and there. The candidates might also put in more time in their "safe states," hoping to run up the totals there. That would be a pleasant change for those of us who saw nothing of this year's campaign.

All good populists favor the popular vote, of course. If present trends continue, our next president will not only have gotten fewer votes than his opponent but also will win the Electoral College on a fluke. OK, them's the rules, but the least reform we should get out of this mess is to fix the Electoral College so that all the states are under the same rules. As it is, only Maine and Nebraska can divide their electoral votes.

I'm keeping myself amused by taking the names of all the pundits and politicians who are making utter fools of themselves over this. The Apocalyptic School looks dumbest. So far, the American people have managed better than a week of suspense without becoming hysterical, violent, revolutionary or even terribly impatient.

Truth be told, many are sort of enjoying this. We're having a Canadian Moment here -- the unofficial motto of what George W. calls "one of our most important neighbors to the North" is, "Now, let's NOT get excited."

The second-silliest group is the "All moral right is on our side" gang. Get a grip, people. Al Gore won the popular vote, which gives him a slight moral edge, but the fluke result in Florida is a strictly a legal issue, to be decided by Florida law, as interpreted by Florida courts. There it is.

Besides, this is a great race to lose. Don't tell me that there aren't people in both parties rooting for just that.