Recount leads to legitimacy
Election re-evaluation complements American democracy

Over the past year, the local and national news has been infiltrated by the current presidential election. From third-party candidates to former prisoners of war, from “fuzzy math” to drunk driving, from inaccurate projections to faulty ballots and from recounts to hand counts, America has finally reached its peak.

That’s right folks. All of this election mayhem is the best thing that could have ever happened to this country.

Sure, the suspense of who will be the next president is starting to drive everybody a little bit nuts. People are getting tired of the hand counts, the lawsuits and the snippy remarks by both candidates’ camps.

But what’s more important here, having someone to name as president immediately or making sure that the winning candidate is put into office?

There is no need to hurry into a decision of the presidency. We have a man in this country named Bill Clinton, and until January he has the job of president.

Americans are very fortunate in the fact that we have a long history of smooth transitions between political parties and offices. Eventually, the elections of 2000 will have the same result.

In many countries, civil wars break out every time a new party attempts to take power or one refuses to step down from power. But because of the intelligence of our forefathers — the same men who called for the Electoral College — this country has prided itself in fair democratic transitions.

On Nov. 7, 101 million Americans cast their votes for President of the United States, and although that number is amazing, it is still only about half of the population. I wonder what the other half would have said?

In any case, the fact that only 200,000 votes separate the candidates in the popular vote — and only a few hundred votes in Florida — is a testament that what Americans call democracy is nearing its peak.

Democracy is all about the common man controlling who comes to power. On Election Day, 101 million of those common men did just that.

It is a rare day when it is so evident how much a single event will impact the future. This event, the 2000 election, will undoubtedly be one of the most historic events in the political history of America.

It will stand next to the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War and the Cold War in history books.

The events of this election will be studied, analyzed, criticized and praised. In the end, the election of either George W. Bush or Al Gore, will be held as an example of democracy.

Will the election results bring a legitimate president? Well, it is hard to tell right now. That is why I urge you, my fellow Americans, to support the new president of the United States wholeheartedly.

We did our part by voting on Election Day. Now, let’s count the ballots as accurately as possible, name a new president and support that president as we carry this country into the endless possibilities of the 21st century.

James Zwilling is a sophomore news-editorial journalism major from Phoenix.
He can be reached at (james_zwilling@usa.net).

In life, there are winners and losers. However, losers come in two distinct breeds: the noble loser, who can stomach his or her defeat and move on, and the sore loser, who is so distraught over the loss that he or she will do anything possible to alter a contest’s outcome.

Unfortunately, one of the largest political figures in America is starting to fall into the sore loser category. Of course, I’m referring to presidential candidate Al Gore.

I must admit that it has taken me some time to figure out why he has endorsed repeated recounts of the election ballots in Florida. Besides the obvious fact that it would theoretically ensure all ballots are counted correctly, I have a feeling that Gore has some sort of ulterior motive since two recounts have already weighed in George Bush’s favor.

At last, after some research, this hidden force has manifested itself.

According to attorney Tim Downs, who has worked for Democratic campaigns in the past, a dubious strategy for hand recounts is to handle the ballots as much as possible so that devious hand counters can crumple or bend ballots to the point where extra chads are broken, thus causing the ballot to become invalid.

With regards to the repeated recounts, former California Assemblyman Pat Nolan says, “The more times those ballots are handled, the more chance there is that chads will break loose.” As soon as enough ballots have been manipulated to weigh in the losing candidate’s favor, the final tactic is to immediately call for a halt to the recounts.

This strategy is rather clever; nevertheless it is outrageous to believe that such a plan may be taking place in Florida this week. Before the staunch Democrats at TCU burn me at the stake for yelling election fraud, I will offer a rather irrefutable piece of evidence that coincides with this idea. UNLV economics professor Tom Carroll has determined, via a series of statistical equations on the net gains the two candidates have made in the recount, that the chance of “such a big difference between the changes in the numbers of votes between the candidates … (is) something like 179 zeros and then a two and a three.”

Carroll, who is a Democrat, went on to state that an equivalent feat to the Florida vote changes would be like having “the same person hit by lightning 30 times.” In light of this statistic, I find it tremendously peculiar that the state of Florida is facing such a highly improbable experience.

I just can’t help but think that the last election before the new millennium is becoming a victim of outright tampering. While Gore may not be directly involved, he is allowing what appears to be a shady activity to take place. On the other hand, kudos may be given to Gore for going against the wishes of his supporters and defending the hotly disputed issue of the Electoral College system.

But wait, isn’t Gore’s support of the Electoral College system a complete oddity in its own right? After all, by most accounts, Gore has won this country’s popular vote. Therefore, what good would it do him to support a system that currently has the potential to take the election from him?

If one tends to view everyone as having some goodness inside of them, then one could safely assume that Gore is just demonstrating his belief in our democratic system. However, if one desires to adopt a little more of a pessimistic view, then one must take into consideration the fact that under the Constitution, the vice president is responsible for validating each state’s electoral votes.

While we would all expect that Gore would have some honor and not manipulate the official electoral votes when they are finally in his hands, can you absolutely declare that such conduct won’t occur, based on the fact that Gore has been part of one of the most corrupt administrations in decades?

The sad reality of this situation is that certain Democratic officials seem to be helping to bring further dishonor to our country. It is in times like these that all we can do is hope for the best and trust that truth will ultimately prevail.

Robert Davis is a senior computer science major from Garland.
He can be reached at (r.d.davis@student.tcu.edu).

Article II Section I of the United States Constitution, established the Electoral College in the name of democracy. In a compromise between election by Congress and election by popular vote, our founding fathers devised a plan by which states vote for a slate of electors that represent each political party. These electors then cast the state’s vote for president.

The Electoral College was established because its creators believed that the average citizen, due to limits in transportation and communication, didn’t have sufficient information about candidates outside of their state to cast an informed vote. They feared that regional candidates would divide the vote or that the most populous states would decide the election without regard to smaller states.

Today, there are 538 electors, one for each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives and one for each Senator, as well as three for the District of Columbia.

It would take a constitutional amendment to change this system.

And in light of this year’s election, perhaps it’s time.

Only twice before in history has a president won the popular vote but failed to win the electoral vote and thus the presidency.

This election year, we have witnessed this once again. The people’s choice may not make it into office because of an old, outdated system we call democracy.

But is it really democracy when you cast a vote for Gore in Texas or Bush in Illinois and it doesn’t count? Is it democracy when the candidate more than half of the voting public supported doesn’t get to sit in the Oval Office?

In this day and age of radio, Internet and television, worries about the average citizen’s access to information seems irrelevant. We, the public, have the tools to make informed decisions about who we want to head our government.

Now all we need is the chance.