Friday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
America’s uncertainty is certain
The only thing this election has
proved, so far, is that every vote counts.
This should be abundantly clear. Your
vote is critical. But here at the Emerald,
America’s anguish has become our
own. Even the editorial board can’t de
cide: As a country, have we ever been
more divided, or have we ever been
more united? And what do we do now?
Nader supporters and independents
say we’ve never been more united —
united behind the idea that our system
is fine and there are just details to be
quibbled about. Issues of power go un
noticed, independents cry. America is
in love with global corporate capital
ism, Nader says. Money equals power
and speech; corporations control our
government, our environment and our
lives; and no one wants to challenge the
state of affairs. To this view, every vote
is critically important to make a stand
against corruption and powerlessness.
Democrats and Republicans say our
country is radically divided. We’re split
along ideological lines, they say. Criti
cal issues such as abortion, gay rights,
education, environmentalism and reli
gion starkly divide the American land
scape. Vast differences exist between
the parties, they say, and every vote is
necessary to support one ideology or
the other.
Adding spin to this cycle, many peo
ple say Nader voters cost Gore the elec
tion. But a recent poll showed that only
25 percent of Nader supportersWould
have voted for Gore. Well, actually,
even 25 percent of the more than
96,000 votes cast for Nader in Florida
would make the difference right now.
But haven’t Nader voters done the right
thing by voting for the candidate they
believed in — the man who represent
ed them? Isn’t that democracy? People
are undecided.
Now the election process itself is
making this continental divide more
unified. A few hundred votes in Florida
will decide the presidency. The re
count continues and absentees have yet
to be counted, so why don’t the media
relax and let the process happen with
out 24-hour reports on every exacting
detail?
Unfortunately, the media can’t relax.
People invested in the decision have
made serious allegations. In St. Louis,
voters waiting in line were turned
away. The ballot in Florida’s Palm
Beach County confused some people,
and 19,000 votes were thrown out.
Questions are arising about irregulari
ties in Wisconsin and New Mexico. The
outcome isn’t even known yet, and
people are in an uproar. Is now the time
to be raising these issues?
Jesse Jackson rallied in Florida about
the irregularities there. Is he only upset
because Gore hasn’t won? Pundits are
torn about his motives and the motives
of Democrats who want votes counted
by hand. Bush’s campaign has suggest
ed it might demand re-counts in other
close states. Democrats imply that’s just
tit for tat.
Floridians are getting picked on
(don’t they know how to vote or count
correctly?),but is that only because
they are under the microscope? Maybe
New York or California woulcf show
worse irregularities if those states were
re-counting.
Whoever wins, though, will obvious
ly have no mandate from the public.
America is split down the middle on
the Gore-Bush choice. So maybe now
we should work together. Maybe now is
not the time for Jackson to be fanning
the controversy. Perhaps we should
learn the results and then find common
ground on which to run the country.
Or maybe we should dismiss unity.
Doesn’t unity, as many modern
philosophers think, just dissolve differ
ences? If we search for the perfect mid
dle to make decisions, don’t we end up
with a total lack of flavor? And for the
19,120 impassioned Florida voters,
whose votes were dismissed because
some ballots had two holes punched
instead of one, should they be giving in
and finding common ground? Their
votes didn’t even count.
Actually, the results in Florida show
that those votes really, really counted.
Those voters should perhaps have tak
en the time to get a new ballot from
elections workers, instead of punching
two holes. Here in Oregon, thanks to
the mail-in system, discrepancies like
that can be clarified with a phone call to
the voter.
But it all comes down to Florida.
Why? Oh yes, because of the Electoral
College. Actually, that’s another thing
this election has proved: People need to
unify and discuss the electoral system,
because it’s not widely understood and
it has America divided. Many people
are outraged that the man most Ameri
cans voted for may not be the man
elected. Others are staunch defenders
of the system, saying it gives small
states weight in the election, so they
aren’t overwhelmed by heavily popu
lated urban areas.
Law experts make the issue murkier.
As Neal Katyal, a presidential law ex
pert, explained for CNN today, the sov
ereignty principles underlying our
Constitution demand that the vote of
the people be decisive. But the Consti
tution says the formality of the electoral
votes must be followed. And Bush is
saying that as well. But the formality of
the law, as Katyal points out, says a
state must appoint its Electoral College
delegates on Election Day. Florida did
not do that. As a result, the law says the
Florida Legislature has the power to
remedy the situation, if necessary.
Maybe the voters who think the Elec
toral College threatens the will of the
people should make their voices heard
and get the process changed. Or maybe
they should respect the Constitution as
written, even if it contradicts its princi
ples. Should Americans fight or unify?
We desperately hope a close elec
tion, an ideological split and discon
tent with the system would encourage
people to get involved in the political
process. But will it? Maybe not. Per
haps people will forget as soon as the
really great Christmas sales begin.
And history doesn’t bode well for
more involvement. In 1960, President
Kennedy won by only 118,574 votes.
In 1964, fewer people voted than in
1960. In 1968, the same thing. So
maybe nobody cares. We don’t know.
Actually, the Emerald editorial
board is divided on all of these issues.
We are unified only in our confusion.
Apparently, so is the rest of the coun
try. So here’s democracy for you: No
newspaper can tell you who’s right
and who’s wrong. We all need to de
cide together what America does next.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent
to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
Florida waiting to exhale
Giovanni Salimena Emerald
CAPTAIN
SENSIBLE
ir.
It was a damn close-run thing, the most
damned close-run thing you’d ever see in
your life. — Field Marshal Arthur Welles
ley, Duke of Wellington, describing the
Battle of Waterloo, 1815.
Right now, the country is going through its
own “damn close-run thing.” Florida still has
not been deci ded. As I write, Florida is em
broiled in a re-count triggered automatically by
the razor-edge margin between the two candi
dates. At last count only 233 votes stood be
tween Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice Pres
ident Al Gore.
Once again, our TV media jumped the gun —
twice. Florida served as a test of the cardiac
health of Tom Brokaw, Bernie Shaw and other
news anchors Tuesday night and Wednesday
morning. After early projections declared Florida for
Gore, the major networks retracted the call. Hours lat
er, they declared Florida for Bush, giving him the pres
idency. In a normal election, that would be the end.
This is not, as you have undoubtedly noticed, a nor
mal election. People were getting sloshed in Austin,
Texas, for an hour celebrating the “victory” of their
governor before Gore, smarting from losing his home
state to Bush and concerned about irregularities in
the Florida ballot, retracted his concession and
demanded a recount.
And so the race hangs in free-fall. -
There are shades of 1948 at play here: The
Chicago Daily Tribune ran an early edition
calling New York Gov. Thomas Dewey the winner of
the presidency. Needless to say, incumbent Harry S.
Truman trounced the governor when all was said and
done, and one of the most enduring photos of that
election is Truman triumphantly holding up a copy of
the gaffe after winning. Neither Bush nor Gore will be
hefting videotapes, I think.
But the larger question is why did the television me
dia screw up so dramatically, even pulling print media
with them? I could just say, “Well, duh, it’s television”
and leave it at that. But I’ve got inches to fill. My pet
theory about television journalism in situations like
this is the “gunslinger” model.
Look at it this way. There is a showdown with at
least two hombres, each with a hand on his gun. The
idea is to shoot first or the other guy will. It’s much the
same in television news, from what I see. They want to
get the story out first to have the honor of the scoop.
This leaves precious little time for fact-checking.
When it seemed Gore was going to carry Florida, the
first showdown happened. A bigger shoot-out was
when Bush seemed to have won the presidency. It ap
peared that they wanted to be the first to report the
winner and so ran with the story without even waiting
to see whether the result would stick.
At this point, mind you, barring Buchanan (whom I
believe should be thrown bodily out of the country) I
couldn’t care less just who gets the top spot. After an
enervating and vicious campaign between three can
didates, a Neanderthal could win in the election and
everything would be copacetic. This has been an ugly
and vicious race. It has been a race that more than any
other deserves all the war metaphors that politicos
have conferred on the pursuit.
I’ll be glad when this “close-run thing” is done. Un
fortunately, at the rate we’re going, that won’t be until
Inauguration Day.
Pat Payne is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views
do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be
reached at Macross_SD@hotmail.com.
Quoted
“Our demo
cratic process
cal Is for a vote
on Election
Day; it does
not call for us
to continue
voting until
someone likes
the outcome. ”
— Bush cam
paign chair
man Don
Evans, ABC
News, Nov. 9,
2000
“I want to be
very careful
that we don’t
do anything
that politicizes
what is a very
important mo
ment in Ameri
can history...”
—Attorney
General Janet
Reno, speak
ing about the
political
process, ABC
News, Nov. 9,
2000
“I cannot
bel ieve some
one would
vote for Gore
and say, ‘ I
made a mis
take. I should
have voted for
Buchanan.”'
— Reform
Party candi
date Pat
Buchanan,
speaking to
Mattlaueron
NBC’s “Today,"
Nov. 9,2000
"You don’t
have to be
snippy about
it.”—Vice
President Al
Gore, retract
ing his conces
sion to Texas
Gov. George W.
Bush on the
phone on elec
tion night,
New York
Times, Nov. 9,
2000
“Bush keeps
saying he
trusts the
American peo
ple. Well, their
judgment was
that they pre
ferred Al Gore
to him.” —
Dennis Gold
ford, a politi
cal scientist at
Iowa’s Drake
University, The
Miami Herald,
Nov. 9,2000