Election reflections

It all came to a head on Election Night, when the major news networks declared Vice-President Al Gore the victor in Florida based on -- what else? -- polling data. As we all know by now, the networks changed their minds a few hours later, declaring Florida undecided. Then they declared Bush the winner, only to pull Florida back into the "too close to call" column a few hours after that, kicking off a win-again/lose-again saga that continues today. For all its twists and turns, however, this -- along with Watergate, Iran-contra, and the Clinton impeachment -- is one of the greatest civics lessons of our time. And ultimately, it's a testament to the solidity of this nation.

The question of who won this election remains unanswered, but it's become increasingly clear that Al Gore should have been the winner in Florida -- and that the media's initial projection was right. The trends established by early vote counts, and by the information provided to exit-poll takers by those who voted (or at least thought they voted) for Gore, show that Florida belonged to the vice-president. The media can legitimately be accused of many failings -- but miscalling Florida is not one of them.

How will this protracted vote count affect our fundamental belief that elections truly reflect "the will of the people?" If we don't believe that an honest attempt to count votes was made, it could be devastating. Just as our Constitution guarantees a fair (not perfect) trial by a jury of our peers (and, almost always, the right of appeal), we expect our elections to be, if not perfect, at least fair. But neither people nor machines are perfect.

The decision to recount all the Palm Beach County ballots by hand -- clearly permissible under Florida law -- seemed like a fair, if not perfect, resolution. So why has the Bush campaign fought that move? In a stunning example of political hypocrisy, Bush, a staunch supporter of states' rights, actually went to federal court to stop the manual recount. He lost, and rightly so.

But that didn't stop Katherine Harris, Florida's Republican secretary of state, from interfering. Although Florida law stipulates that a statewide election must be certified by the secretary of state's office one week from the date of the election, she ordered some of the counties to stop recounting by hand before this past Tuesday. In other words, Harris, who delivered Florida oranges door to door for W.'s campaign in New Hampshire, and who is a crony of W.'s little brother Jeb, interfered with local election commissioners' ability even to attempt to get the hand recount done in time. Given her obvious partisan bent, Harris should have recused herself from this process.

As we go to press, local officials in Florida and large numbers of citizens are calling for Harris to accept the results of the manual recount, even if they weren't finished by 5 p.m. on Tuesday. Others are calling for a manual recount of every vote in the state -- which seems like a good idea, considering what's at stake. The Electoral College doesn't take its vote, which will determine the winner, until December 18; Inauguration Day is January 20. We have to ask, what's the rush? The Bushies claim that the American public demands and deserves closure, but those claims ring hollow in the face of the many surveys showing that what the people want -- and are willing to wait for -- is a fair process. Isn't it more important to give the appearance of a fair and accurate vote count as opposed to a rush to judgment?

Bush's attempt to stop the recount is an act of desperation by a man who is so removed from the electorate that he can't be bothered even to appear to care about the will of the people. From the outset, Bush, like Gore, should have stated firmly that every effort should be made to allow the recounts to be completed, because only then could the American people comfortably believe that each vote had been counted. Not having done that could be George W. Bush's ultimate downfall even if he eventually wins the election.

As bad as Bush has been, Gore hasn't been much better. Since Election Day, neither candidate has demonstrated a propensity to lead. Both men have chosen to withdraw from the American people and hand over the reins of process to former secretaries of state -- Gore's brief address outside the vice-president's residence earlier this week notwithstanding. Process is critically important in times like these, and seeking the best and most experienced advisers is what we'd expect from our president. But no surrogate, stand-in, lawyer, or former secretary of state -- regardless of his brilliance -- can substitute for a real national leader. Does anyone think Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan would have hidden in the wings if his presidency had been on the line?

We will eventually swear in one of these men as our 43rd president. We would prefer that Al Gore be put in office, and we believe that he is the rightful winner -- of both the popular and the electoral votes. But if it is to be W., we will, as the hyperkinetic Democratic strategist James Carville has said, honor him as our president even as we disagree loudly with his policies.