The allegedly confusing ballot

[Leslie Goldstein]

many nader voters sincerely believe it has to get worse before it gets
better, and would not change their votes.  I know some.
LFG

Ward Farnsworth wrote:
>
> >3) If the ballot violates state law, it would make sense to invalidate it
> >and revote, assuming Florida law does not expressly prohibit this.
>
> 1.  In an important sense it's too late to "revote." Allowing those who
> voted before to decide afresh who to vote for would put them in a position
> that I can't imagine being permitted.  How many of them do you think would
> vote for Ralph Nader (or for that matter Pat Buchanan) *this* time around?
> Surely there is something important about the principle that when we vote,
> we vote at the same time rather than sequentially.  It has to do with
> putting voters on an equal footing.  I would much sooner tolerate some
> errors in recording peoples' preferences (which are inevitable anyway) than
> start fiddling with the other principle.
>
> 2.  Another of the many bothersome aspects of this idea is the spectacle of
> deciding whether to enforce the law only after the result it (perhaps) has
> produced has become clear.  I am reminded of the time George Brett hit a
> home run for the Kansas City Royals, and the Yankees' manager (Billy Martin)
> *then* emerged from the dugout to point out that Brett's bat had too much
> pine tar on it.  Okay, the analogy breaks down; the pine tar didn't cause
> the home run, but it's possible that the voter confusion had real
> consequences for the election.  But as I understand it the ballot was
> reviewed, approved, and distributed by both parties in advance of the
> election.  If Gore had won (or wins), the objections to the form of the
> ballot evaporate or never get made.  Is there not something untoward about
> deciding now -- with the freakish political consequences of this district's
> votes clear in retrospect, and uppermost in everyone's mind -- that the
> ballot turned out to be more confusing than it should have been, and that we
> therefore need to give everyone in the district who voted on election day a
> chance to redecide how to vote?  Sounds like heads I win, tails you lose; it
> raises nice strategic possibilities for future designers of ballots in close
> elections.
>
> 3.  It appears that preferences about the political outcome are driving many
> of the arguments being made in public discussion of this issue.  (I
> understate matters.)  But obviously the relevant question is general, and
> should only be considered in a general way:  if you can find a district
> whose votes could have swung a presidential (or other) election, and it can
> be shown that the residents of that district were confused by the ballot
> form used (or that it had legal defects), do you then let the people in that
> district have a new little election of their own a couple of weeks later to
> decide the entire race, knowing full well that is what they are doing?  If
> the answer is "yes," I think we are fundamentally altering the notion of
> equality between voters and finality in elections, which normally contain
> some share of confusion, mistakes, and even fraud.  If Gore is a statesman
> (and otherwise seems to lose the election), he will ask the Florida
> Democrats to drop the litigation and devise a better ballot for next time;
> and that is indeed what I expect he will do.
>
> __________________________________
>
> Ward Farnsworth
> Boston University School of Law
> 765 Commonwealth Ave.
> Boston, MA  02215