The United States' democratic system encourages candidates to go above and beyond to get every possible vote. That system encourages high-quality candidates, rewarding them with benefits to their careers and egos. But as campaigns have become longer and more expensive, some otherwise worthy candidates are too easily tempted to exploit the system for their own personal gain. Rest easy, freshmen Senators, we're not talking about life at Tufts today.
Yesterday, a court in Minnesota upheld the results of the recount of the state's U.S. Senate contest between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman. Franken, according to the ruling, won by 312 votes, roughly equal to the purported membership of the Tufts Mountain Club. The narrowness of Franken's margin of victory should have been the most mind-boggling part of that ruling. Unfortunately, it was not.
Instead of graciously accepting the news and bowing out, Coleman is stubbornly marching on. Swiftly and conveniently changing the focus of his argument, he has already decided to appeal the ruling to the State Supreme Court. Part of his previous appeal, which guaranteed review of the election by three judges, hinged on Coleman's complaint that not all absentee ballots had been counted. Indulgently, the judges presided over a hand count of some previously rejected absentee ballots. This count, to Coleman's dismay, actually widened his opponent's razor-thin margin. Digging deeper for any excuse to soldier on, Coleman is now focusing his complaint on alleged inconsistencies in the way various counties tally their absentee ballots.
It is exceedingly easy to pick apart Coleman's inane-sounding justifications. If Coleman truly cared about the way different counties processed absentee ballots, he could have easily brought it up before it was suddenly convenient for him to do so. If he is so in favor of counting every single vote several times before he is convinced that a winner has been decided, we're sure he was also cheering for Al Gore as he appealed — just once — to hold a recount in Florida in 2000. Some commentators have cynically continued to assert that Coleman knows he has lost, but is merely trying to delay the handing over of one more seat to the Democratic majority. Others have suggested that Coleman might still be hoping for a victory, as Franken might not have enough funds to support him through yet another prolonged legal battle.
The possibility that Coleman could have such malicious intentions is unsettling. The passive acceptance of conniving politicians serving no conceivable interest but their own as a necessary evil is even worse. Granted, it is difficult and wrong to prevent people like Coleman from using the proper mechanisms to seek justice. But there are ways to prevent such a fiasco from happening again.
One partial — but realistic — solution is publically funded elections. It would put all candidates on equal playing fields, eliminating any sort of contest to see whose funds can last longer in court. If common sense cannot break through someone's pride enough to signal to him or her that enough is enough, perhaps equal funding would make the candidate see the light. It could even have broader implications; when candidates are more accountable to the public and less so to special interests and big party donors who are more likely to encourage unethical behavior, they will be less likely to exploit the system each time it presents an opportunity. The incentive to serve the average citizen would be increased and could encourage a different mindset among politicians.
But for now, one can only hope that this appeal is handled fairly and expediently; after all, we have our own botched elections to worry about.
