What do you think of the proposition that butterfly ballots, machines,
dimples, chads and hand-counting are all distracting excuses?

My sense is that it is inevitable that when the stakes are this high, the
winner takes all and the tally is so (unusually) close, it will always be
ultimately decided by a court with mandatory legal/constitutional authority
(not the court of public opinion in this case).  If it was a simple "X" on
a straight-forward folded ballot (or pick any other simple, fair format),
if it ended this close, the losing candidate (and half the country) would
inevitably have found some grounds to challenge the results in both courts.
That is how I saw the "third world" references yesterday: it has less to do
with sophistication of the election machinery than partisan human nature
with an essentially equal chance at extraordinary power.  At least there
are independent courts in the U.S. and a tradition of law.

With the Internet today, some partisan for the losing side could always be
counted on to say s/he was mis-directed in some way and was denied the
franchise (itself akin to wrongful death).  That one vote would have made
the difference.  Better yet is to invoke a claim of some class-based
discrimination.  The media dig around and in no time they have partisan
evidence (proof) that the election should have gone the other way.

Is that king-sized cynicism?  I dunno.  But I do think ballots, machines
vs. hands, dimples, state officials and chads are all red herrings.  If it
wasn't them, it would be something else.  Blame the photo-finish.  We're
not very good at accepting the "plus one" majority when we are faced with
it, and we'll embrace all authoritative proxies (like judicial decisions)
to avoid it.  No recount can now ever restore public confidence.  A high
court decision may do better because at least it has the appearance of
objectivity and comes from the secret formal domain of law.

Cheers,
Peter Bowal
University of Calgary