Whoever said that if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it was wrong. Not only is no event exactly like any other, but looking at history too closely may lead us into doing nothing, especially if what we did before failed.
?Whoever said that if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it was wrong. Not only is no event exactly like any other, but looking at history too closely may lead us into doing nothing, especially if what we did before failed.
That may well be where we are at, if we think that the US presidential election of 2004 is just a repeat of 2000. It's not. Things are very different this time around. In 2000 we didn't know that the Republican candidate was a congenital liar and that most of the pronouncements he had made while campaigning were false. Now we do. In 2000 we suspected that electoral fraud had been committed, that citizens had been unfairly disenfranchised, and that the processing of the ballots had been haphazard, if not riddled with fraud. In 2004 we know it. In 2000 we thought the courts could be relied on to insure a fair electoral process. In 2004 we know that they can't--at least not if they are asked the wrong questions.
There's another significant difference between 2000 and 2004. In 2000, because the term of office of the executive had definitely run out, any uncertainty about who would succeed him risked leaving the office empty. Since that situation was to be avoided at all costs, any harm suffered by individuals that was not life-threatening had to be considered of less importance. In 2004, of course, that condition does not pertain. The current occupant of the office can and will continue, even if his right to do so is unsettled. His continuation in office is not likely to cause much greater harm to the nation than he already has.
While this fundamental difference between 2000 and 2004 would make it unlikely that an appeal to the Supreme Court on the same grounds would have the same result, the appeals for judicial intervention in 2000 would not have had the desired results in any event, because the relief being asked for was wrong. It wasn't just that the proposal to do a ?recount? of votes in just a few counties wasn't comprehensive enough; it was that recounting the votes wouldn't have done any good. What was needed in 2000, and is needed now, is the manual processing of all ballots in order to validate that the identification of votes is not flawed and has not been subverted by tampering with the tabulating machines. Simply recounting what's left over after a large number of ballots have been discarded as ?spoiled? isn't enough. Besides, I think we can assume that machines counting is not a problem. The problem lies in deciding what's to be counted as a vote, what's to be thrown out and, most importantly, to whom what's to be counted is assigned.
And that's a big problem. One that was virtually ignored in 2000 and seems to be over-looked again in 2004. For, the widespread assumption that the votes being counted are assigned to the presidential candidates is actually false. While the votes counted for every other office are assigned to the person who will assume that office, if he/she gets the most votes, the ballots in the presidential contest are actually cast for a slate of electors. Whether we approve of this process or not, and despite the fact that their term of office and their duties are strictly limited, the electors are Constitutional officers and, having been selected (by whatever process the states determine), are entitled to carry out that office as the Constitution specifies. Which would seem to suggest, would it not, that if their selection is fraudulent, it would be subject to legal challenge and any slate of electors defrauded in the process would have standing to assert their claim in a court of law.
I guess one question I would ask is after a ballot has been cast, who's the vote been stolen from when it is illegally discarded or assigned to someone else? Certainly the opportunity to cast a ballot was denied to lots of citizens in both 2000 and 2004 and they can rightfully claim that their civil rights were violated by strategies that kept them from the polls. But, once the ballot has been cast, doesn't it belong to the designated candidate? And aren't the designated candidates in the presidential race the electors in the several states? And if that's so, what standing do the presidential candidates have? What claim do they have to an office for which no ballot has yet been cast?
What we often tend to overlook about the courts is that, when they are functioning properly, they only answer the questions they are asked. So, if you ask the wrong question, the answer may well be worthless. Think of it like asking if you should jump in the river to get across. A court is going to tell you either yes or no. It is not going to tell you to use the bridge. So, if the presidential candidates go into court and ask to be given the votes that were supposed to go to their electors, I'd expect the court to say, I can't do that. Is it going to go on to say that the candidates have no right to even ask for those votes? I would be suprised, if it did. Which is why I'm suggesting that we'd better start paying attention and realize that this time ?it's the electors, stupid?!
And it will be the electors until we amend the Constitution. ??
Posted by Hannah at December 3, 2004 06:11 AM