Saturday, March 27, 2004
Dealing with disputed elections
I don't pretend to know much about Taiwanese politics, but the willingness of the apparent winner of Taiwan's recent elections to accede to a complete, court-administered recount should shame anyone proud of America's long democratic tradition. The situation is a bit different from the Florida dispute of 2000, but at least Taiwan's president recognizes what (I had presumed before 2000) all elected leaders in democracies recognize: elections are the key linkage between the ruler and the ruled, and must be held in the utmost regard. A disputed election needs to be resolved, regardless of expense, to ensure the legitimacy of government and the reality of rule by the people. A leader who openly tries to stop a recount in such a situation is simple anti-democratic, and deserves the scorn of all the electorate.
When these sentiments were aired in 2000, some of Bush's lackeys on the right crowed about the exorbitant cost of recounting (as if it compares to the massive sums in spending and taxes that can shift as a result of the outcome) and worried about the effects of "instability" during the recount (as if that compares to the instability of years of illegitimacy and distrust). But now it should be clear that American elections still matter. Some voters used to more or less competant and faithful governments convinced themselves that it didn't much matter who won in 2000.
Now everyone should know that people of stunning incompetence and bad faith can gain power, even in a centuries-old republic. Thousands of lives and trillions of dollars hang in the balance every fourth November. Shouldn't the adults be in charge of these decisions? And shouldn't every effort be made to ensure the polls are fair and accurate?
When these sentiments were aired in 2000, some of Bush's lackeys on the right crowed about the exorbitant cost of recounting (as if it compares to the massive sums in spending and taxes that can shift as a result of the outcome) and worried about the effects of "instability" during the recount (as if that compares to the instability of years of illegitimacy and distrust). But now it should be clear that American elections still matter. Some voters used to more or less competant and faithful governments convinced themselves that it didn't much matter who won in 2000.
Now everyone should know that people of stunning incompetence and bad faith can gain power, even in a centuries-old republic. Thousands of lives and trillions of dollars hang in the balance every fourth November. Shouldn't the adults be in charge of these decisions? And shouldn't every effort be made to ensure the polls are fair and accurate?
