[ad_1]
Our conversation, conducted by email and slightly modified for fluidity, is presented below.
Cillizza: The words "Florida narrative" have political types that explode in hives. What are the similarities – and differences – between the 2000 Florida recount and what we are heading for in the governorship and Senate races this year?
Toobin: The biggest difference is that the famous punch card ballots – in which voters push the bravest to make their choices – are no longer used. Much of the confusion in 2000 stemmed from the difficulty of determining how punctured ballots were cast – that is, whether a recessed or suspended vote counted for a vote. This problem is gone, as most states (including Broward County) are now using optical ballots, ie ballots where the elector fills a balloon , as in a standardized test, to vote. In theory, it is much easier to determine the voter's intention on this type of ballot when there is a recount.
Another difference is that at this point in the process, it's really more accurate to talk about what's going on than to count, especially in Broward County, which is at the center of the current controversy. There is not yet a final vote for Broward, a very Democratic county that includes the city of Fort Lauderdale. It is only after initial recognition that it is possible to realistically assess whether the two Democratic candidates have a chance to catch up.
In other words, Nelson is currently late by about 16,000 votes and Gillum by about double. In reality, there is no way to fill this type of deficit in a recount. But if the difference continues to decrease as Broward completes his initial count, Democrats may have a chance in the recount. Remember that Al Gore lost Florida by 535 votes, which is a much lower margin than those discussed in 2018.
Toobin: Yes, as stated above, the systems are improved. Optical scanning, as the current system calls it, is much better than the punch card. But these systems are still under the control of people who are often not very good in their work. And electoral technology is never a priority for countries in difficulty. No constituency encourages the government to spend money on elections. So nobody notices or worries until a situation like this arises.
Cillizza: In 2000, it was widely acknowledged that Bush's public relations operation surpassed Gore's – and that made a difference. True? And if so, what is the importance of going out and framing the recount in a favorable light?
But the biggest problem was that Republicans were still ahead in the Florida count, and that's what matters most. It is always easier to protect an advance than to attack one. And most stories end with the candidate who was in front, finishing with a bigger lead – rather than a switch.
Cillizza: President Trump has suggested that the recount in Florida has a role to play for the federal government. What could it look like?
Cillizza: Finish this sentence: "The biggest lesson that both parties to the 2018 narrative should tell of the 2000 experience is ____________." Now, explains.
Toobin: "… the elections should be run by well-funded professional administrators, not by partisan hackers using obsolete equipment."
It is simply absurd to elect the officials of our elections – usually the secretary of state. This is particularly scandalous, as in Georgia, where the Secretary of State is running for a hotly contested election. Supporters still hold elections in Florida, whether at the state or county level, and this is the main cause of the problem. Supporters will never have the credibility that allows the losing party to accept the results without grudge or suspicion.
[ad_2]
Source link
