Another Angle | National voting needs standardization

Amanda Melillo Opinions Editor

After the Florida voting fiasco of the 2000 presidential election, politicians and voters across the nation began to realize that America could not have a repeat of the heated hanging-chad war. This led Congress and the Senate to pass a bill in 2002 that would create nationwide voting standards by this 2004 election to ensure that each vote counts. The government put four billion dollars forth to buy new voting machines and hire workers to enforce new standards. But if the government passed a bill two years ago to standardize this election, why do national voting processes seem as disjointed and disordered as ever?

Between problems with the new voting machines in Florida, the potential splitting of Colorado’s electoral votes and alleged voter fraud in Nevada and Oregon, what this country needs is actual enforced voting standardization to make our elections both more democratic and more legal.
Florida has been working to replace the butterfly ballots used in many Florida counties (which led to recount issues that ultimately put Bush into office) and has installed a touch screen voting system. While it is reassuring that fifteen counties are now up-to-date on technology, the worrisome glitch is this: election officials claim there is no way to recount the votes as they have not installed a paper printout system.

If this election comes down to a dispute over a few hundred votes as in the last election, there would be no way to determine who should actually win the electoral votes—thus leaving the state’s votes up to another arbitrary court decision.

Another problem with the system is that in an analysis of the March 9 election reveals that one out of every 100 votes is not recorded in the machines. How can every vote count if they’re not even being recorded? While Florida officials claim that a paper recording system cannot be done, clearly this is a misstatement; Nevada recently became the first state to successfully print paper records of electronic ballots. In a lawsuit over the paperless electronic ballots, an appeals court ruled that a paper trail is not obligatory and that voters are not guaranteed “a perfect voting system.” This statement reveals a huge discrepancy between the goal of the national bill of 2002 and a state’s obligation to uphold standards.

It is also possible that another state could transform their voting process in this election; on Nov. 2, Colorado will not only be voting on a presidential candidate, but also if the state should split the electoral votes between Republicans and Democrats to reflect the state’s popular vote. Colorado is currently one of the 48 states that allocates all of its electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote within the state. If voters should choose to split the vote, whichever candidate wins 52 percent of the popular vote will get five of Colorado’s electoral votes instead of all nine. Maine and Nebraska are currently the only two states that do not follow the traditional electoral process; in these states, the popular vote winner receives two electoral votes, while the rest of the electoral votes are determined by which candidates carries each congressional district.

Why is it possible to have such difference between each state’s electoral processes? If each state can make its own rules, then there’s no consistency whatsoever in a national election. If reflecting the popular vote is the concern, then do away with the electoral college, which is an antiquated and needless system in modern politics anyway. It is unnecessary for a president to lose the popular vote of the people and still rise to the highest position of leadership in this country.

Problems in voting stem not only from state governments, but in private firms as well, demonstrated in an alleged voter registration fraud case again Voter Outreach of America. Voter Outreach was established by Sproul & Associates Inc., a Republican consulting firm that received 500,000 dollars from the Republican National Committee this election. Canvassers hired by the company are given a script that blatantly states, “Our goal is to register Republicans,” and employees claim that they will be fired if they return to the company with a lot of Democratic registration forms. Employees of the company, after registering Democrats, stand accused of throwing away or ripping up their registration forms.

It is unethical for a political party to be able to financially endorse a supposedly nonpartisan registration firm that in turn discards votes from the opposing party. This should be taken into account when the government tries to create bills that makes it “easier to vote but tougher to cheat,” as said by Republican Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri—because apparently, cheating is still happening and making it impossible for some people to vote in this election.

If the federal government hopes to standardize voting in this country, they have to realize that it extends beyond some new machines and hired manpower. Accurate technology, electoral voting and registration privatization all must be considered in this “first civil rights bill of the 21st century.”