We've all heard the Chicagoan voter mantra "vote early and often." Many of us, myself included, take that phrase as a sort of dry, cynical idiom, not as policy. Yet, is there some sort of truth to it? Not that there is voter fraud (which I'm sure there is), but is the system even remotely close to accurate?
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that it is not accurate. Then what? There are a few different ways we can begin framing this sort of question, but all of them center around one simple question - do you care? Do we care if the right person is elected? Or do we care that we think the right person is elected?
That last question is why many of us turn our brains off when we start thinking about the accuracy of voting. It's a hard thing to swallow. It's so much easier to believe in an accurate system. The existential feeling that arrives with that thought is a hard thing to shake. "Recount" itself arrives at the same sort of existential end.
"Klain (Spacey): So, did the best man win then?Baker (Wilkinson): You bet.Klain: You sure about that?Baker: As sure as you are about your man."
Yet, remember our assumption.
"Recont" leaves us with that sort of cliffhanger end, as did the 2000 election. Is the right person in office?
You caught me though, I'm assuming that there is an objective reality at the end of this thing. That there is a clear winner and that there is a right person. Far from it, it seems.
Review Method Winner
Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
• Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225
• Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430
• Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493
Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count)
• Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
The multitude of interpretations seems to make Lynne Chenney's claim that there is an "externally verifiable truth" seem a bit erroneous. Externally verifiable truth is something that, even if you want to believe exists, is never the truth we, as a society, come to. External truth, by its definition, exists outside of the realm of interpretation, and we, as a society, interpret everything. We interpret with our eyes, ears, noses, brains, etc. The event could by the exact same (see hostile media bias article from the beginning of the term), yet it is perceived differently. So, even if you claim that a perfect truth, an externally verifiable truth exists, it is forever unattainable.
If anything, it seems, our society isn't looking for the truth. We're looking for truth that we can be comfortable with.
No comments:
Post a Comment