Mad Social Scientist

Of all the things Bush and his cronies have done to hurt our country, the one that has always stuck in my craw is his contempt for democracy. Our country has remained democratic through tremendous trials. Indeed, it has usually come out of those trials, like the Civil War, the Depression and Second World War, and the tumult over civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s more democratic than before. Along comes George W. Bush, who doesn't care a whit about the democratic process, only about grabbing hold of power and doing what he feels like with it. He's trying to do what civil war couldn't---turn American democracy into a sham.

The behavior of the Bush camp in Florida in 2000 stunned me, and converted me from someone who didn't much like Bush to someone who loathed him as much as any figure in American political history. He simply didn't care who the voters had chosen. He didn't care about the democratic process. I think Gore and the Democrats were equally surprised that the Republicans were ready to fight tooth and nail, even if their man had fewer votes at the end of the day. And they didn't fight back hard enough.

Well, four years later, Bush and Rove and co have if anything less respect for democracy. (Let me note in passing that mere willingness to hire and associate with Karl Rove should be proof that a man is neither honest, nor good, nor fit to run the country. See this collection of Rove stories if you have any doubt). Bush et al view the critical opinion of millions as an inconvenient "focus group". They don't care what anyone in Congress or even the Cabinet thinks. They want loyalty to their vision from everyone. And if they can't get it, they'll cheat, lie, and steal to get it. The list of electoral crimes is mounting---check here and here. It's too depressing to list them all, but the worst offenses---shredding Democratic voter registrations, trying to reject ballots because they aren't printed on the right card stock---are evidence that the modern Republican party believes in democracy about as much as Hitler or Stalin did.

This is a massive problem, and we need to come at it aggressively. It should be at the top of the legislative agenda for the Kerry administration, if one arrives.

Let me channel my inner politician and give you an idea of the bill I'd most like to see passed next year. It has three planks, and is call Every Vote Counts.

1. A standard national ballot format. The 2000 election revealed that differences in ballot design can make the difference in a presidential election, and complicate efforts to settle the outcome of close elections. Preventing another Florida debacle, and ensuring that every vote has the same chance of being counted is an easy task for a rich, technologically advanced country. The first step is to insist on a common ballot format for the entire country. This design should be simple but flexible, to allow the diverse elections of various states (some allow referenda, or direct election of judges; others do not). In other words, a template, not a straitjacket

2. A standard national counting technology. The foundation of democracy lies in free and fair elections, and elections cannot be either unless everyone is assured that the counting of ballots will be uniform and reliable. Some pundits pretend that this is impossible, even in a country as rich and technologically adept as the US. We can make ballot counting reliable, fast, and non-controversial, by adopting a uniform and effective technology nation-wide. I nominate optical scanning of ballots marked by an ordinary pen. This is a highly reliable technology with a paper trail and easy recounting. It will drastically reduce the risk of miscounting and fraud. With adequate federal funding, we can ensure there will be no more Floridas.

3. Constitutional affirmation of the right of all voters to vote for the president, directly for the president, and to have their vote count in the presidential election. Bush v Gore held that Americans do not have a guaranteed right to vote for the president; rather, the states can select the presidential electors as they wish. Moreover, no one really votes for presidents, rather, they vote for electors at best, even when this right to vote is granted. Finally, most Americans live in states where the margin in the presidential race is large, and even if the election is close in swing states, their votes do not count. The only way to solve all these problems is a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college and instituting popular election of the president.


The likely objections to "Every Vote Counts" are weak. Will it take a little power away from the states? Yes, but it's worth it to protect democracy. States can still have diverse arrangements for local and state elections (they can have referenda or not, provide supplement information to voters or nor, experiment with different voting rules, etc.) And we can fund it federally, which will help the states out. Will it cost money? If a few billion can secure democracy in America, then it is the best money the federal government will ever spend. Will it reduce the clout of small states and swing states? Yes, but voters in those states now count for more than the rest of us. Defenders of the status quo want unequal votes, they want their vote to count more than yours. That's not fair, that's not democracy. I urge the next president to push Congress to make sure Every Vote Counts.