A: Why not?

No, I'm not done with the election stuff yet. Sorry. Here's a quick blizzard of questions and answers on the matter. All of the following is my opinion; your mileage may vary.

(And unless current events move along much more quickly than I expect them to, a modified version of this is certain to be my column in the student newspaper next week. It's nice to have it so far ahead of schedule for a change...)

Q: The experts cited on the front page of the New York Times claim that it is in the nation's best interests that the election be resolved within the next week. Do you agree?

A: Not a chance.

Q: Why not? Doesn't this whole sorry situation undermine the electoral system?

A: Quite the contrary. It vindicates it.

Our system is founded on the fact that every vote counts. Even absentee ballots. Even ballots from overseas. In a close race, one vote can make all the difference.

Current events are proving this right. Yes, it may take awhile, but in a race this close, it should. Because every vote does count, and a few of them aren't in yet.

Q: So what about Bush's calls to Gore to concede already, for the good of the nation?

A: Seems like an attempt to bypass the system, doesn't it?

Q: But didn't Nixon--

A: You know, I never thought I'd see the day that Nixon was upheld as a shining example of how to behave in an election.

Q: But--

A: And isn't it ironic that this call for stability is coming from the party that impeached the president two years ago? How do they reconcile that? At least this time around, the questions surrounding the presidency are the natural results of a close election, rather than the results of a partisan attempt to depose our leader.

Q: Umm... let's move on. What about the legal challenges by the voters of Palm Beach?

A: That's part of the process also. Let the court system do its job. People accidentally voted for the wrong person. It's understandable that they have concerns. Telling them not to use the system would send exactly the wrong message. Let's set a positive example instead.

Q: So you think there should be a revote in Palm Beach?

A: Not a chance.

Q: But you just said--

A: I said that people are understandably concerned, and have a right to go to court. The decision to be made in court is pretty obvious, though.

Q: Then you don't think a poorly-designed ballot cost Gore thousands of votes?

A: No, the evidence is pretty clear that it did.

Q: So why not have a revote?

A: The question assumes that there was something unprecedented about this election; that there have never been ballots this confusing before. And that's just not true.

Election screw-ups happen. There is no perfect system, and there's never going to be one. If we have a revote every time something goes wrong with a vote -- or even a substantial number of them -- we'll never settle on a decision.

The way our system works is that we get one stab at choosing a president. We do the best we can at making the process work. We inevitably find some flaws in the system. We do our best to fix those flaws the next time. We do not have a "do-over" vote.

Q: That's harsh.

A: That's the way it goes.

Q: You probably think those voters in Palm Beach should've asked for help with their ballots, if they were having trouble.

A: Are you kidding? That assumes that the officials at the polling places knew what they were doing.

Q: You think they didn't?

A: Well, actually, I don't know. I'm pretty sure they don't where I live. It's not as if "election overseer" is a regular job, y'know? At least where I am, we're dealing with a bunch of nice, well-meaning, not terribly competent elderly volunteers. Looking up voters' names in an alphabetical listing seems to be about the extent of their mandate, and abilities.

Q: Don't you think that should be changed?

A: If we can afford to, sure. But that's a matter for the next election. In the meantime, we work with what we've got.

Q: What about the argument that not having a revote thwarts the will of the people?

A: The system itself reflects the will of the people. What, you think those ballots, and the laws governing them, originated in a vacuum? Looking only at one specific situation and ignoring the context it's in misses the entire point.

Q: So what you're saying is, let the recounts and legal challenges roll along, and it'll all work out well in the end?

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: But... but the proceedings might disrupt the soaps!

A: That's the price we pay for living in a democracy.

Q: You wouldn't be that sanguine about it if the WB ever interrupted Buffy for anything.

A: You may be right. But nobody's perfect.