9th Circus
...but not at a level where the
federal government should step
in.
I don't think the feds should ever step in if there are laws already on the books. Even if the state decides that the ballot should be cast by tiddlywinks, as long as there is a definition and a method for deciphering ambiguity, the feds should stay out.
If, and only if, there is a dispute after the legal election and votes have been cast, should the feds get involved, like in Florida. But preventing a legal election when all of the criteria have been met, is wrong.
For example, say the election was delayed until March 2004. What about the 400,000 absentee ballots cast for October 7th? If there is a law that says it is legal to throw them out, the feds should stay out. If, however, there is no law, and they are held until March 2004, what about people who have died from this date until March? That would be a time for the feds to step in and decide how to handle it. Likely California has no law to determine how to count a vote from a significant number of dead absentees. As such, the feds would have to decide, since the state didn't think of it beforehand.
That's a silly example, I know, but I think it makes my point. Federal judges should only step in if election officials are shortsighted, like in Florida.
People focus on the voting method, but it's the laws that are important here. Florida was so inept, they didn't even have laws on cleaning requirements for the voting machines. They left it up to the counties, just like interpretation. As result, you'd have ambiguity like the pregnent/dimpled chad, which were a direct result from voting machines that were caked with chats from years and years of neglect.
I have to say, that's a pretty good record overall. The worst anyone could say about our voting method is that one state messed up on upkeep enough to cause a 50/50 election to sway over to the right. Pretty much sums up the "Made In America" slogan pretty well.
I don't think the feds should ever step in if there are laws already on the books. Even if the state decides that the ballot should be cast by tiddlywinks, as long as there is a definition and a method for deciphering ambiguity, the feds should stay out.
If, and only if, there is a dispute after the legal election and votes have been cast, should the feds get involved, like in Florida. But preventing a legal election when all of the criteria have been met, is wrong.
For example, say the election was delayed until March 2004. What about the 400,000 absentee ballots cast for October 7th? If there is a law that says it is legal to throw them out, the feds should stay out. If, however, there is no law, and they are held until March 2004, what about people who have died from this date until March? That would be a time for the feds to step in and decide how to handle it. Likely California has no law to determine how to count a vote from a significant number of dead absentees. As such, the feds would have to decide, since the state didn't think of it beforehand.
That's a silly example, I know, but I think it makes my point. Federal judges should only step in if election officials are shortsighted, like in Florida.
People focus on the voting method, but it's the laws that are important here. Florida was so inept, they didn't even have laws on cleaning requirements for the voting machines. They left it up to the counties, just like interpretation. As result, you'd have ambiguity like the pregnent/dimpled chad, which were a direct result from voting machines that were caked with chats from years and years of neglect.
I have to say, that's a pretty good record overall. The worst anyone could say about our voting method is that one state messed up on upkeep enough to cause a 50/50 election to sway over to the right. Pretty much sums up the "Made In America" slogan pretty well.
Posted: Monday - September 22, 2003 at 09:44 PM |
Distractions