March 2001
Florida’s Vote-Counting Fiasco Worthy of Imitation
by Filip Palda
So you think ballot counting in Florida was a fiasco? Canada’s boss of ballot counting, the Chief Electoral Officer, seems to think so. In December he boasted how in Canada’s November election all votes were hand-counted inside of a few hours. His attitude is typical of countries around the world who cackled in joy to see the US stumbling over the meaning of dimpled chads. Should the US look to Canada for a way to fix its vote-tallying system? Quite the reverse. Canada would do well to copy the US.
The main reason Canada was able to know so quickly who would be their head of state is that in national elections, Canadians have only to decide who will represent them in their ridings. Unlike in the US, where voters must vote for the President, House, Senate, state legislature, county, as well as possibly voting on initiatives and referenda, Canadian voters have only one choice to make: who their MP will be. Our representatives then act as an electoral college to appoint the prime minister. Canadian election results are quick because elections here are simple.
Canada’s vote counting system might appeal to those who worship order. One central office based in the capital looks after every ballot in the country. This may explain why Canada still counts its votes the way it did in the days of buggies and horsewhips. A central authority running the show cannot easily experiment with new systems. Canada can only polish what it has, instead of trying new technologies.
The mishmash of US vote-counting systems which has made the US the laughing stock of the world is in fact a great strength and glory. In the US, each county has its own method of counting votes. Some count by hand. Others allow voters to enter their choices on an electronic dashboard. A few counties have even experimented with internet voting. What may look like mayhem is actually a laboratory in which each county is a test tube.
Researchers at MIT and Caltech are now gathering information on these disparate systems to see which deliver the best results. Their findings will allow backward counties to shop around and benefit from the experiences of more daring counties. Modern capitalism arose by allowing some producers to take the risks and others to imitate them. There is no reason democracy should not be allowed to improve by the same wildfire method for the spread of invention.
Balloting systems should reach for several ideals. Voters must understand who and what they are voting for, ballot counters should not have too much discretion in deciding whether a ballot is spoilt or not, and polling booths should be easy to get to. Paper ballots may satisfy some of these ideals, but the experience of the November 6 election suggests that it may be time for Americans to dare to be different. Next time around, more adventurous counties may want to try a hybrid ballot counting system that gives voters the choice of paper ballots, voting over the telephone using a PIN, and internet voting.
There is a final ideal of balloting systems that may sound like science fiction, but which could send democracy up to the next level. Millions of dollars have been spent by private firms to develop technology that would allow citizens to vote at any time during the campaign and then, if they pleased, change their vote right up to the last minute of the election. Election campaigns could become stock markets where the shifting opinions of voters count as much as their final opinions. If too many opinions are shifting, politicians know they have to be clearer. The benefits of clarity go straight to the voter.
Perhaps the greatest strength of the fragmented US system of vote counting is that you don’t have to listen to me, or to some Chief Electoral Officer who wants to impose his or her views about what is best on the whole country. The US is strong because it understands that diversity is the source of creation. Americans would do well to ignore Canada’s sterile, one-size-fits-all vote counting system.
Filip Palda is Professor at l’École Nationale d’Administration Publique in Montreal, and Senior Fellow of The Fraser Institute. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago.
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.