www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=65000596
EST No, the sparsely populated country just south of Libya has not all of a sudden started making news. Rather, the talk about different types of "chad" is at the center of the current vote count firestorm in Florida, and how it's handled will probably determine who the next president is. A chad is the small perforated portion of a paper ballot that voters use a stylus to punch out and thus indicate their choice of candidate. If a chad is punched completely out, a computer registers a vote. But many voters don't vote for every office, either because they don't know about any of the candidates or are disgusted with all of them. In a very few cases, the stylus doesn't completely punch through and the little pieces of chad stay stuck to the ballots. As ABC News points out, there are about a half dozen different types of chads. There is the "pregnant chad," the "dimpled chad," the "tri chad" (with three corners hanging loose from the ballot), the "swinging-door chad" (two corners) and the "hanging-door chad" (one corner). Chad shouldn't really exist in this country because for at least 25 years optical scanners have been available to count votes. A voter fills in an oval with a lead pencil, takes it to a scanner which then shows any problems with how the ballot was filled out. Some new machines allow the voter to carry home a copy of how he voted. In Leon County, Florida (Tallahassee), optical scanners worked like a charm this year. A machine recount of all county ballots this week resulted in not a single change to any vote total. Unfortunately, only about 7% of the country uses such scanners. A full 37% of all voters are stuck with punch cards and chads, technology decades old and prone to problems. Some counties keep punch cards because new voting technology takes a back seat to other budget priorities, although perhaps the current crisis will change that shortsighted attitude. A recount of punch card ballots can be one of the most grueling, subjective and confrontational events in politics. The problem, ballot experts say, is that trying to divine a voter's intentions on a secret ballot is often inherently subjective. Alan Simpson told us, "Some counties use the 'sunshine test' to see if sun will shine through the ballot chad indicating it's loose. The mere act of running punch-card ballots through a computer will loosen some chads. Picking up a card from a pile and sliding it toward you can loosen a chad. If the fragile ballots are "tortured" enough by machine or hand a desired result can often be achieved. In Florida, the three-member Palm Beach canvassing commission has no clear standards set in state law on how they will conduct a recount of punch-card ballots. The two Democrats changed their mind twice on what standard to use in the sample recount of four precincts done on Saturday. In the morning, they indicated a ballot would be valid of only one corner was detached from the card. Then they decided to go with a "sunlight" test, in which ballots were held up to the light. Midway through the count, the standard was liberalized and they discontinued the "sunlight" test and went back to the one-corner standard. The new standard required them to go back and recount all the ballots they had just ruled on. In the end, this shifting standard produced enough changes in vote totals to prompt a 2-1 vote in favor of a countywide recount that will begin Monday. At the speed the sample recount went, it would take Palm Beach County workers 37 days working 24 hours a day to complete the task. None of the problems associated with recounts prove that election bureaucracies tilt toward one party or candidate. But election workers are often underpaid and overworked as well as unfamiliar with all the mechanics of a recount. They are often no match for sharp, aggressive lawyers who can make their life miserable if they don't bend in their direction on interpreting ballots. Arnold Steinberg, a GOP pollster in California, recalls a 1980 election that turned into a nighmare. James Corman, heir apparent to take over the House Ways and Means Committee, had been defeated by Republican Bobbi Fiedler, and Democrats wanted the seat back. Ultimately, the Democrats halted the recount when it became clear Ms. Fiedler's 749-vote margin of victory was insurmountable. As a young journalist, I too witnessed a disastrous recount in California in the 1980s. A state Assembly seat near Stockton went to Republican Adrian Fondse by 39 votes. Democrats sent in the same tough team of lawyers that had handled the Corman-Fiedler recount. They were equally obnoxious and aggressive, with the difference that the number of votes they had to make up were much smaller. After more than a week of trench warfare and intimidation of election workers, the adjusted recount gave the election to Democrat Pat Johnston. No party has a monopoly on bad behavior when it comes to recounts. In 1995 Indiana's GOP state legislators ran roughshod over the rights of a Democrat who had knocked off a GOP incumbent. They ended up not seating her and ruled enough ballots invalid to install her opponent in office. That kind of combat often works in reversing narrow election losses in recounts for lower offices. But in the case of Florida deciding who the next president is, such hardball tactics will likely both educate and irritate a weary public.
|