Dialogue: US better do something to protect right to vote

By STEPHEN LEVINE*

The problem with presidential ballots in Florida left Americans preoccupied for over a month with the outcome of that race. Rightly so: whether George W. Bush or Al Gore proved ultimately to be the victor was, in the short term, the right thing on which to focus.

But now that the election is over, the basic problems with the American voting system remain unresolved.

This outcome is fairly typical for American politics. Basically, the country is better at exposing the errors of the past than at working out meaningful changes for the future to ensure that the same problems don't happen again.

This was the case with the deeply flawed attempt to remove President Clinton from office - an almost forgotten affair, bordering on hysteria, which nevertheless convulsed the country for years. It is also almost certainly the case right now with the voting process.

Nevertheless, it would be best if somehow the American people could receive some kind of assurance that the voting system will work correctly the next time they go to the polls.

This is the sort of assurance that even the best Supreme Court - and the one they have is far from that - can scarcely hope to provide.

The issue goes beyond the state of Florida, of course, although one would have expected that the state's politicians would perceive a unique opportunity, perhaps even an obligation, to take the lead in promoting change.

After all, it was Florida's voters whose votes went uncounted; Florida's election officials who were criticised, ridiculed, even intimidated; Florida's highest court that was effectively bypassed, its members' integrity impugned; Florida's legislators who had their own role in the election seriously questioned; and Florida's Governor (President-elect Bush's younger - and apparently smarter - brother) who was placed in a very awkward position by events and circumstances.

Although major mistakes were made in the administration of the election, no one has seriously argued that the mistakes in Florida were the result of a pre-election plot to hijack it.

Florida's problems, and those afflicting the American electoral system generally, are the result simply of negligence, a failure to examine the country's voting machinery (literally and figuratively) in a rational, systematic or comprehensive way.

In a healthy democracy, of course, this is what would now be done, not only to prevent problems in 2004 - when Americans next choose a President - but in 2002, when all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the members of the Senate are up for re-election.

In New Zealand, when we have had problems with our elections - whether they be the ballot paper, the slow reporting of results or the discrepancy between the popular vote and the number of parliamentary seats won - we have responded with commissions, inquiries, reports and, in due course, revisions to laws and procedures.

The American system, however, is slower, more cumbersome, more complex and afflicted by additional burdens - some constitutional and others political (in terms of partisan self-interest).

There is also a laziness, and a complacency, a smug self-satisfaction that inhibits a deeper, more searching look at underlying institutional problems.

It is important, and obvious, that all votes should be counted. This is as true for House of Representatives and Senate contests as for the presidency. Control over Congress - the House and the Senate - should also not have a cloud over it, to be questioned by voters or resolved in the clearly inadequate setting of the courts.

Drawing on New Zealand's experience, Americans could respond to the flawed 2000 election by taking a careful look at its voting system.

Are the procedures fair to all political parties? Do they treat all groups of voters equally? Do they enhance or discourage participation from throughout the community? Do changes need to be made to strengthen the sense of legitimacy, to ensure that election results are seen as a true reflection of the voters' will?

This is not a constitutional problem - although a failure to protect voting rights is - as much as an administrative one.

Ironically, the United States Government encourages other countries to improve their systems of governance, including electoral systems. The US even provides modest amounts of aid to countries willing to make adjustments to strengthen democratic institutions.

It would cost very little to encourage comparable improvements in the democratic process within the US itself.

Indeed, here was a programme, an initiative, which President Clinton, looking longingly for a legacy, could have embraced with ease and enthusiasm.

Instead, what remains is an opportunity for "bipartisan leadership" - which America's politicians and media claim to want so dearly - from President-elect Bush, from the defeated team of Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman, from members of Congress and from the leadership of the somewhat humiliated state of Florida.

To the list of things Americans say they need to save - social security, Medicare, the country's overwhelmingly powerful defence forces - can now be added the right to vote.

* Stephen Levine is associate professor of political science at Victoria University.

Herald Online feature: Election aftermath

Map: final results across the USA

Bush-Cheney transition website

Transcript: The US Supreme Court decision

Transcript: The US Supreme Court oral arguments

Diary of a democracy in trouble

Electoral College