A Farewell To Chads
By Mike Bayham
September 26, 2002

On my office wall is something that one day may become a piece of history. The object I speak of is an old election absentee ballot from the 2000 presidential race. The way absentee voting (also known as early balloting) worked for many years in Louisiana was rather simple; one was issued a set of ballots depending on what precinct they voted in and all they needed to do was punch through a small round hole by their choice of candidate.

As a one-time member of the local election board, I was on the committee that counted the absentee punch-card ballots. If the election had a number of candidates with a high turnout, we used a small machine that counted the ballots. In the case of a race where only a handful of people voted early, the committee counted the ballots by hand. During my time on the board, there was never a single problem or controversy. People who had set on the board for many years could say the same. However thanks to Al Gore and a small number of disgruntled Floridians, states that used the punch-card ballots were forced by negative media concerning the "chad" problem to change their system of voting.

Despite the lack of problems, Louisiana dumped the punch-card system and adopted a "scantron" ballot which voters could pencil in their candidate selections on a form no different from ones used by students in school. However, there were even flaws in that system.

As someone that was occasionally burned in classes when scantron forms were used, problems did arise and the teachers every once in a while had to credit points to students for improper scoring by the machine. Also, if a student changed his mind on an answer and did not erase their marking enough to prevent it from being picked up by the reader, the student would not receive any credit. It is possible that the same potential problems that plagued students taking tests on scantron could also happen with the new voting system and it too was abandoned in favor of something even more high tech.

When I went to absentee vote this week, I was brought to a "new fangled" contraption that had a touch screen, probably no different from the ones used in the Florida Democratic primary. Surely a person who was dumfounded by the "butterfly ballot" could figure this one out. All one has to do is press their vote on the screen next to the candidate's name and the entire block then lights up. From there the voter presses another button that shows all of his choices and then asks if selections shown match his desired choices. The process ends by confirming the selections by pressing a distinct glowing "vote" button.

But according to some Democrats in Florida, even these machines are flawed. The first problem is that they don't work when they are not turned on when voting commissioners decide to not appear at the polling locations on time. Second, the new system does not protect true idiots from ignoring the instructions and somehow doing something wrong.

A more accurate way to put it is that after a great deal of controversy and millions of dollars spent, some people in the Sunshine State found a way to mess up another election and bring shame and embarrassment to Florida. The key word of course being "found" since it is almost impossible to mess up on this new system.

In her early stirrings indicating she would fight her loss in the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, Janet Reno began building a case against the touch screen voting system. Some of her camp's arguments included that "smudges" on the screen prevented some votes from registering, that the machine failed to calculate the total votes, and other general accusations of machine malfunctions. After it became apparent that Reno had lost her bid by a significant margin, she dropped her protests.

However, I believe that it is incumbent on Florida Governor Jeb Bush to investigate the allegations for two reasons. If the machines, which are far more complex in operation than the now infamous punch-card system, have registered significant problems, then they should be addressed and fixed. If there were no problems with the machines, then the new computer touch screen set up would be vindicated and by default this would point the finger at the true culprit: human error.

2002 was not the first time this "election gremlin" wreaked havoc on Florida for human error was also to blame in the 2000 election debacle. Some of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard were used by "upset" voters when they stated their complaints with the presidential election.

One yellow dog Democrat lamented that he had voted Democrat his entire life and that he was so used to voting that way that he did not even bother to read the ballot; he simply punched in the second spot. Not until after the fact did he "realize" that he had made a mistake and had supported Pat Buchanan. It seemingly did not occur to this person that a) Democrats ran his county and were the ones responsible for drawing up the ballot and b) he was blaming someone else for not bothering to read the ballot. There were plenty of equally ludicrous laments made by other Democratic voters in that election as well.

Broward and Miami-Dade Counties were the center of controversy that caused voting to be extended by two hours on election day. Governor Bush rightfully set the blame on the people responsible for administering the elections in those areas. Hopefully the commissioners who failed in their duties will be discharged and eventually prosecuted if their actions (or inaction) were deliberate.

But what it all boils down to is that there is no perfect system for secret ballot elections. Machines sometimes make mistakes, whether they are electronic or mechanical in nature. Coming from Louisiana, I have heard of every single way an election can be stolen or a voting machine can be manipulated, making me a realist and a cynic.

The only alternative to the problem of machine malfunctioning is to discard the "Australian ballot" and do like they did in the old days in which voters cast ballots in front of witnesses, an unsavory option that will never be considered.

The main problem with conducting a fair election has little to do with errors on the part of a voting machine but rests with a machine of a different type. Political machines, especially in big cities, are known for their ability to turn out a large vote for their candidates whether by hook or by crook. The real concern in conducting an honest election is the prevention of fraud, something the Democrats never like to talk about with good reason.

It has been over 126 years since the Republican Party stole an election (that being the Hayes-Tilden presidential contest of 1876). Unfortunately, the issuing of "street money" for "getting out the vote" is a practice still employed by Democrats. Even more troubling than paying people to vote is the problem of voting commissioners "ringing the bell," a phrase used to describe casting a massive number of illegal votes during slow times at a poll precinct.

If true election reform is desired, a system needs to be put in place that allows for electronic monitoring of voting precincts to ensure that the number of votes cast equals the number of people that actually walk inside the voting precinct.

Instead of trying to create a "foolproof" system so fools can register their vote for their favored candidates, emphasis should be placed on implementing "fraud proof" elections. To err is human; to steal is criminal.