[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 146 (Tuesday, November 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11516-S11518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE CLOSEST ELECTION IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I said this morning, we can certainly 
all agree that this Presidential election is one of the closest in our 
Nation's history. While Al Gore appears to have won the popular vote, 
leading by 223,000 votes, the electoral college outcome is much less 
clear, even though Vice President Gore also leads in the electoral 
college vote at this time. At this point, whichever candidate wins 
Florida will probably win the Presidency. Right now, according to the 
latest reports, only 388 votes separate the two candidates. That is 
0.0067 percent of the votes in Florida--less than seven-thousandths of 
1 percent.
  Yet when it appeared that the extremely close vote in Florida would 
decide the election, rather than waiting for a careful counting of the 
ballots as required by Florida law, the Bush campaign pushed for 
acceptance of the current count. The American people disagree. 
According to a recent Newsweek poll, 72 percent of American adults 
believe that making certain the count is fair and accurate is more 
important than rushing to judgment to get matters resolved quickly. 
Democracy is slow, yes; democracy takes time, yes; but democracy is 
still the fairest system of all, and the American people understand 
that.
  It was very discouraging that just days after the Bush campaign 
sharply criticized our respected former Secretary of State, Warren 
Christopher, for leaving open the possibility of seeking judicial 
review of highly questionable portions of the process, the Bush lawyers 
themselves went to Federal court to block a hand recount of 
questionable ballots--a process that is generally recognized as much 
more accurate than machine counting.
  I also find it highly ironic that the Bush lawyers chose to try to 
block a hand recount when they themselves, according to news reports, 
supported a hand recount in New Mexico. In fact, in 1997, Governor Bush 
himself signed a Texas law that seems to encourage hand recounts of 
disputed votes.
  Now, as we all know, just a few hours ago, the latest attempt to 
block a complete and fair count has been upheld by a court in Florida, 
although an appeal is expected shortly, if in fact it hasn't happened 
by now.
  The court ruled that Florida's Secretary of State, who was an active 
Bush supporter and traveled around the Nation on his behalf, could cut 
off the county's recount efforts at 5 p.m. this afternoon. She made the 
decision to end the count at that time, 5 p.m. today, knowing full well 
that the hand count of the ballots allowed by Florida law cannot 
possibly be completed by that point in time.
  In America, we are certainly used to getting results of our elections 
from the news networks almost immediately after the polls close, 
sometimes 3 or 4 hours later in relatively close elections but almost 
certainly the next morning. However, we have to realize that what we 
heard from the networks early on election night were not actual 
election results but exit poll results based on a very few counted 
ballots. When the difference between the candidates falls below a 
couple of points, we have to wait for an actual vote count. When 
the difference falls below a few tenths of 1 percent, we have to wait 
for a careful recounting of the votes.

  There are several important reasons for these procedures. First, 
precinct and county election officials are dealing with many numbers 
quickly on election night. Mistakes are unavoidable. But in this case, 
where the difference is not 1 percent or a half percent but less than 
seven one-thousandths of 1 percent, or just over 300 votes out of over 
5 million cast, we cannot allow any room for error.
  The very machines that we use to count votes are prone to 
inaccuracies. The inaccuracies in some Florida counties occurred 
because not all voters marked their ballots to the preset machine 
standards. In some cases, they were using punch cards. Well, people 
don't always push the paper dot out of the hole, and sometimes they 
don't totally fill in the circle with the No. 2 lead pencil; thus, the 
machines can't always detect these votes. In a typical election, this 
isn't a problem.
  Election officials know that one out of every so many votes won't be 
counted by machines. I wonder how many American people know it is a 
given fact that one out of so many votes will not be counted by a 
machine. They are very inaccurate. In an election where one candidate 
wins by 5 percent or 8 percent of the vote, these inaccuracies make 
very little difference in the final outcome.
  But in an election as close as this, every single one of these votes 
matters. We have to count every single last one of them. No American 
should be disenfranchised because of a mechanical error. That is why I 
believe we have to be patient and allow the process to continue.
  Again, former Secretary of State James Baker keeps saying that we 
have already counted the votes twice. But what he doesn't mention is 
that these counts were both done with machines that have error rates 
far larger than the percentage of votes separating the two candidates. 
Machine error rates are far higher than seven-thousandths of 1 percent. 
Mr. Baker says that machines don't have bias, that they are neither 
Democratic nor Republican. I keep hearing this statement.
  It is also true that machines are far too inaccurate for the kind of 
count we

[[Page S11517]]

need in this election. These machines just cannot count all those 
ballots where the hole is not completely punched or the circle is not 
completely filled in. Only human beings who can see whether someone 
tried to punch through the paper or make a mark can do that. To those 
who say that machines are more accurate than human beings counting 
ballots I would just ask: Have you ever gotten a phone bill that was 
inaccurate? How about your credit card bill? Machines make mistakes all 
the time. If you are not careful in catching them, you may be paying a 
little too much on your phone bill when you pay it. That is why we 
carefully look over our bills. The only way to really accurately get a 
count is through the time tested, old-fashioned way of counting these 
ballots.
  Why do we use voting machines? We do not use voting machines because 
they are more accurate. We use voting machines because, No. 1, they are 
quicker and, No. 2, they are less expensive. They do not cost as much. 
Still, the most accurate way of determining every person's vote is to 
have people walk into a voting place; you hand them a paper ballot. 
They walk into the booth; they take their pencil and they mark the X in 
the box or circle; they fold the ballot, stick it in the box, and when 
the polls close those ballots are hand counted by human beings, 
impartial panels--one from each party, let's say--counting these 
ballots.
  If that is the most accurate way, why don't we do that in America? 
Because in a national election such as this it would take maybe a 
couple of months to count all the ballots nationwide, and we want to 
know before then what the results are. Plus the cost of paying humans 
to sit there and count the ballots would be exorbitant. So we must 
disabuse ourselves of this false notion that somehow voting machines 
are more accurate. They are not. The most accurate is still hand 
counting those ballots.
  We have to remember also that there is nothing exceptional about 
conducting a recount. Both hand recounts and machine recounts are 
common in close elections. This happens all over America in every 
election. We have recounts even in local sheriffs' races. Imagine. 
Let's take the Florida race. Let's bring it home to a county. Let's say 
we are having a sheriff's race in a county and let's say there were 
4,000 votes cast in the sheriff's race, 2003 for one candidate, 1,997 
for the other. The county says it is too close; we are going to have a 
recount. They start hand recounting it. They hand recount 200 ballots 
out of the 4,000 and the outcome changes by 2 votes. Now, instead of 
being separated by 6 votes, the candidates are separated by only 4 
votes.
  Let's say the top ranking election official in the county comes in 
and says: Stop counting. You have counted 200 ballots; you cannot count 
anymore. What do you think the outcry would be like in that county?
  What, you have counted 200 ballots, the vote has changed by 2, that 
could be 30 or 40 votes out of 4,000 ballots. That could reverse the 
original improperly counted outcome.
  That is exactly what is happening in Florida on a much larger scale 
than the local sheriff's race to which I just alluded.
  Secretary Baker protested that the election officials in control of 
the Florida counties being recounted are Democrats. I find it 
interesting he is not protesting that the chief election official in 
Florida is a Republican, the very official who decided today to suspend 
the ballot counting at 5 p.m. The Secretary also neglected to mention 
there are Republicans sitting in the counting rooms, monitoring the 
count to eliminate even the slightest possibility of partisanship. To 
this day I have not read or heard a single word in the newspaper or on 
the media anywhere to suggest that any improprieties in hand recounts 
have occurred. The American people can be satisfied that hand recounts 
are accurate and fair.

  Again, what has happened today with the Secretary of State saying at 
5 p.m. we have to have all the ballots in and stop counting the hand 
ballots--that is like in the local sheriff's race, you have counted 200 
ballots out of 4,000, the votes have changed a couple, and the election 
official says: Don't count anymore. I think the American people 
understand this. They get it. You cannot just count a few and say we 
are going to stop there.
  In our democracy, victory is determined by who gets the most votes in 
each State. I see no harm in waiting to make sure each count is fair 
and accurate. The electoral college doesn't vote until December 18, and 
their votes are tentatively set to be counted by a joint session of 
Congress on June 6, 2001. So we have plenty of time to make sure the 
true winner is named. So I submit the most fair and most accurate way 
of determining who won the electoral votes of Florida, because that is 
what is in contest right now, the electoral votes in Florida--the best 
way to determine that is to have a hand recount of all the ballots in 
Florida. I am told by those knowledgeable of this situation this could 
be done within probably 10 days to 2 weeks at the most. This could be 
done and then we would know with a finality and a certainty just who is 
selected to be the next President of the United States. If we do not do 
this, a cloud is going to hang over whoever is chosen to be the next 
President.
  I think that is the proper way to proceed. It is improper, illogical, 
and not in the best interests of fairness and accuracy to stop the hand 
counting of ballots when only a few have been hand counted. I 
understand about 1 percent of the ballots in a couple of counties have 
been counted at this time.
  With States such as Florida in question and with candidates separated 
by a tiny vote margin, it may take a few weeks to make a clear 
determination. I believe that is in our best interests. Slow down. We 
are not in any hurry. What is the rush to judgment? Let's take our 
time. Whoever is the President, is going to be President for the next 4 
years. I submit what is important at this point in time is not whether 
Vice President Gore is the President-elect or Governor Bush is the 
President-elect. That is not what is important right now. What is 
important right now is the sanctity of each person's vote; to make sure 
that each person's vote is counted properly. That is what is important 
here. If we know--and we do know--that machines make mistakes, and we 
have seven-thousandths of a percent dividing these two candidates in 
the State of Florida, then the most fair way to do it is to hand 
recount these ballots.
  For the life of me I do not understand why the Bush campaign is so 
opposed to this. As I said earlier, we have hand recounts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 15 minutes of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. As I said earlier, we have hand recounts every election 
in the United States. Most often they are on more local elections such 
as elections for county supervisor, maybe a State representative. But 
it is not unheard of to have hand recounts for the House of 
Representatives or for the U.S. Senate. It is just that we have never 
had a Presidential election this close. So if it is fair and logical 
and in the best interests of ensuring that every voter's vote is 
counted accurately, if it is in our best interests to do that in a race 
for sheriff, is it not even more in our interest to have that kind of 
hand recount in this race for the Presidency of the United States?
  I believe those who are somehow trying to stop the hand recount in 
Florida, trying to say let's just take the machine count whatever it is 
and we will live by that, or I guess with some overseas ballots that 
are due in, knowing full well the margin of error in the machines is 
more than the percentage difference in the two votes--if you are making 
that argument, what you are basically saying is the most important 
thing is to stop the process right now. That is more important than 
deciding the fairness and accuracy of each person's vote.
  There is no crisis in America. Frankly, I disagree with Secretary 
Baker completely. This morning he was saying the markets are now going 
to be upset by this. That is nonsense. That is just nonsense. The 
American people understand this. There is no crisis in America. We are 
going about our business. People are getting up and going to work every 
day. Nothing is happening. We can take our time. The President-elect is 
not sworn in until January 20. We have time to make sure

[[Page S11518]]

the vote is accurate and fair. There is no need to pull the curtain 
down and say, no, we have to end it right now, when so much is in 
doubt, when the race is so close, and when a fair and accurate counting 
of the ballots may move it one way or the other.
  I do not know; maybe Mr. Bush will win the election. As I have said, 
it is not important right now whether Mr. Bush wins or Mr. Gore wins. 
What is important is that every voter's vote in Florida is counted 
accurately and counted fairly, and whether that takes us 10 days or 12 
days or 2 weeks, I believe the American people deserve to have those 
votes counted fairly and accurately.
  Earlier today my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, 
introduced a bill proposing the formation of a commission to examine 
methods to reduce the miscounting of votes at the polls. I have 
cosponsored that legislation with him because I believe we do need to 
look at this situation. I think we should carefully examine 
alternatives, given the experience we are now going through. We should 
examine the electoral college. Maybe it is not perfect, but I happen to 
think it may be more perfect than a direct election but I am willing to 
look at it. Perhaps we could allocate the elector's votes by electoral 
district as Nebraska and Maine have decided to do. Perhaps we should 
consider automatically giving these electoral votes to whoever wins the 
State, rather than electing individual electors who could actually vote 
against the will of the voters in their areas. But I am intrigued by 
having electoral votes determined by congressional districts as Maine 
and Nebraska do, as I said.

  We ought to consider providing counties and States the necessary 
funds to assist them in modernizing and standardizing their voting 
methods. Although it may be somewhat more expensive--we don't know--
there is voting technology that exists and is used today, or some of it 
may be not used, that could reduce voting errors and errors in vote 
tally. No technology will completely eliminate inaccuracies, but this 
election clearly demonstrates our current methods must be improved. 
That is why I joined with Senator Specter to cosponsor this 
legislation. I really do believe we need a more standardized 
methodology of voting machines in this country.
  I asked my staff earlier, How many different kinds of voting machines 
do we have in this country? We have looked at this question and we do 
not know the answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional 5 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. We do not know how many different kinds of voting 
machines there are in this country. Since we are a mobile people, we 
move from one State to another, one area of a State to another, they 
can go and be totally confused by a voting machine that is different 
than what they had used the election before. So I wonder aloud about 
maybe standardizing voting machines throughout the country so, no 
matter where you go, you have the same voting machine that you had 
before.
  I also believe we have to look at the latest technology--it exists--
which could reduce to the barest possibility that a person does not 
vote for whom he or she wants to vote. There are interactive devices; I 
have seen them demonstrated myself, devices that any person with a 
disability, whether you are blind or deaf or whatever you might be, 
could use alongside anybody else. It wouldn't differentiate.
  It would ensure that when you walked out of that booth, you knew 
exactly for whom you voted or for what you voted in terms of some of 
the resolutions and other items that are on the ballots.
  If nothing else, we ought to be about this in the next session of 
Congress. I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for introducing this 
legislation in this session, and I look forward to cosponsoring it with 
him when we meet again in January.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed in morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________