[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 146 (Tuesday, November 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11521-S11523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING IT RIGHT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to share for a few moments this 
afternoon, before we adjourn for the day, if not for the week, some 
thoughts on the ongoing events, most obviously, the 2000 Presidential 
election.
  I will talk about some of the mechanics of this and some of the 
comments made earlier in the day by my colleagues from Iowa and 
Pennsylvania, and some thoughts that they shared.
  Before getting to the substance of that, I am a Democrat. Obviously, 
as a Democrat, I am hopeful Al Gore and my colleague from Connecticut, 
Joe Lieberman, will be elected President and Vice President. Certainly, 
I fully understand how colleagues of a different political persuasion 
and other Americans hope that George Bush and Dick Cheney will win the 
election. I suspect maybe the Presiding Officer may share those views.
  The most important belief everyone ought to have is that this 
process, at the end of it, whenever that comes--whether it is the end 
of this week or sometime over the next several days or weeks--that if 
it takes a little time, that is uncomfortable, but the most important 
conclusion is that it be one the American people support, even those 
who would have wished a different outcome in the election.
  I served on the Select Committee on Assassinations 20 years ago in 
which we reopened the investigation of the assassinations of John 
Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. What possible analogy could those 
two events have with this? Well, my colleague from Rhode Island and 
others may recall that the Warren Commission, which did the initial 
investigation into the tragic assassination of President Kennedy, was 
urged at the time to hurry up, to rush to get the job done, and they 
did. In retrospect, they did as well as they could have under the 
circumstances. But there was sufficient pressure to get the job done. 
Several years later, we had all sorts of questions raised that the 
Warren Commission did not address during the period of its 
consideration. I don't think we ever would have satisfied some of the 
elements who are always going to be convinced of conspiracy theories. 
But for an awful lot of other Americans, had the Commission taken a bit 
more time and gone through the facts a bit more carefully, we could 
have avoided the problems that ensued thereafter, including a whole new 
investigation of the assassination some 13 years after the events 
occurred in 1963.
  The analogy is this: Obviously, we are not talking about that length 
of time, but while I hear people urging a quick decision, a fast 
decision, we all understand, while we like clarity and we would like a 
decision made immediately, we need to place at least as much emphasis, 
if not more, on this decision being the right decision, that the 
decision is seen as being fair and just and an expression, as close as 
we can have in an election involving more than 100 million people 
across the country, of the will of the American people.
  That is going to be difficult because of the closeness of the race. 
It is important to get this done quickly, but it is more important to 
get it done correctly.
  We do not want a substantial percentage of the American public 
questioning the legitimacy of the 43rd President of the United States--
whether that is Al Gore or Gov. George Bush. The American people should 
support that choice and have confidence that the choice was the right 
one. I hope that, while there are those clamoring for a quick decision, 
we get the right decision. Utilizing the courts and utilizing manual 
counting ought not to frighten people. Courts are used in our country 
when there is a dispute that can't be resolved, where facts and 
theories of law are in dispute. If that is the case, you go to court 
and try to get an answer. You would do that if you were talking about 
county commissioner or secretary of State. In the State of Florida, we 
should do no less with the office of the President of the United 
States. In the final analysis, the new President will look back and be 
grateful that we took the time to get it right; that we did not rush to 
a quick judgment here for the sake of what may appear to be sort of an 
early way to achieve a win.
  Having said all of that, there will be much talk in the coming weeks 
about what went wrong here, what could have been done differently, and 
issues around the electoral college, whether we ought to keep it, 
abandon it, or reform it. Are there things we can do from a Federal 
standpoint to assist our respective States so we don't have the kind of 
confusion that has emerged here and regarding some of the ballot 
choices and equipment used to record people's votes? There will be all 
sorts of ideas shared.
  My first suggestion and hope would be that people take time to step 
back and examine our current situation. I get nervous when people have 
quick solutions for an immediate problem that has emerged, such as here 
with this close election. Lets not forget that we have been a republic 
for 211 years. This will be the fourth such election out of 43 
Presidential races where there has been a close race, where the popular 
vote and the electoral votes--and we don't know the final outcome of 
this one--have a different result.
  Before we decide we want to radically abandon this system, my strong 
suggestion to my colleagues and others who will be commenting, is to 
take some time to think it through carefully and not rush out and be 
offering proposals and bills that we may come to regret. There have 
been some 200 proposals made to amend the Constitution regarding the 
electoral college over the last 200 years, many of which have been 
suggested over the last 40 years. Before we jump to these proposals, I 
suggest that we think them through.
  I listened with interest earlier this day to our colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, discuss two issues that are obviously 
timely and important ones at this moment about reform in the electoral 
college. I wish to address those issues for a few minutes. First, let 
me join my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, in congratulating 
Senator Specter for introducing the concept of a bipartisan commission 
to examine whether we might--at least in federal elections--develop 
more accurate and uniform methods of recording and reporting the votes 
cast by the citizens of our Nation. I know at least one newspaper in 
the country--the New York Times--has already editorialized on this 
topic in favor of modernizing what many consider to be a ballot system 
that is in many respects and in many areas of the country fairly 
archaic in terms of its technological sophistication. I will join 
Senator Specter and others in developing a more thoughtful approach to 
this dilemma. It is a dilemma because control of elections has been 
left to the decision of States across the country. The federal role is 
somewhat limited in this, to put it mildly. It is more a question of 
how we can work with the States in a cooperative fashion when it comes 
to federal elections--elections beyond mere consideration for the 
offices in the respective States and counties. I think we have a 
legitimate interest. Certainly, that has been borne out by the events 
of the last week in this country. Certainly, we have seen, as I say, in 
the last week issues raised that none of us could imagine would have 
been brought up prior to the results on Tuesday night.

  I think the events of the past week have shaken many Americans out of 
a false sense that our system--or should I say systems--of tabulating 
ballots is absolutely error free. It never has been perfect. No one 
disputes that the hallmark of our system--namely free and fair 
elections--is as strong as it has ever been.
  Indeed, if we have learned anything over the past week, it is the 
truth of the maxim that it is as ingrained in our consciousness as the 
Pledge of Allegiance or the Preamble of the Declaration of 
Independence: In America, every citizen counts.
  That is a mantra we hear over and over again: Every citizen counts. 
Every citizen has a part to play in choosing how we shall be governed. 
Many of us have said over the last week: Don't ever let me hear anybody 
say again that every vote doesn't count, or a single vote doesn't 
count. You have seen

[[Page S11522]]

that the margins in the State of New Mexico in the Presidential race 
may be down to 17 or 20 votes. We had a congressional race in my State 
a few years ago where out of 200,000 votes cast, 4 ballots determined 
who the Congressman of the Second Congressional District would be. So 
we all say every vote counts, every citizen counts.
  While our system may be the fairest in the world, we have been 
reminded over the past week that it is not infallible. Few areas of 
governance are as decentralized as voter administration. According to a 
news report today, election decisions are made not only by each of the 
50 States but by more than 3,000 counties and towns, where they have 
separate rules outside of the State rules. So 3,000 different 
jurisdictions in this country have something to say about how elections 
are conducted in America. The methods of voting vary widely from 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction--from the marking of paper ballots to the 
use of the Internet, as we have seen.
  By far the most common form of voting in our Nation remains the 
punching of paper ballots. It is estimated that some 40 percent of 
voters utilized that method to vote on election day. This is so despite 
the evidence that paper ballots are more vulnerable, than any other 
voting system, to voter error.
  We have all become familiar in the past six days with the variety of 
ways a ballot now may be marked--language I never heard before, 
terminology I never heard mentioned. All of a sudden, we have all 
become familiar with things called ``chads'' and parts of chads. I 
never heard of a ballot being ``pregnant,'' but I now know that it can 
be in this country, which is a startling revelation. So we have heard a 
new vernacular in our society. People everywhere are learning about the 
variations of the chad: the ``pregnant'' chad, the ``dimpled'' chad, 
the ``hinged'' chad, the ``swinging'' chad. These are all words that 
those who may have been involved in the arcane business of voter issues 
know, but for most Americans these are new words.
  Beyond the punching of a paper ballot, some 20 percent of voters use 
mechanical lever machines that are no longer made. Another 25 percent 
fill in a circle, a square, or an arrow next to the candidate or ballot 
question of their choice. Only about 10 percent use a computer screen 
or other electronic means to have their votes recorded automatically.
  One consequence of using a patchwork system where most votes are cast 
by paper ballot is that errors can affect outcomes. That is what the 
people and officials of Florida are obviously trying to contend with 
even as I speak on the floor of the United States Senate this 
afternoon.
  Another consequence, however, should be just as much a cause for 
concern, and that is that in a great many jurisdictions the voting 
process might not only be prone to a significant risk of error, but a 
significant risk of delay on election day as well. Throughout the 
country during the past election, we heard a great many reports of long 
lines at the polls. One hour, two hours, three hours. People were 
waiting a long, long time in many parts of the Nation to cast their 
ballots.

  Certainly, the vast majority of those who did endure these waits did 
so with patience and a deep sense of the importance of the moment. 
However, the question we must ask ourselves is what we might try to do 
to shorten those lines. We must recognize that, in an era when we can 
pay bills, buy goods and services, and do many other things by 
computer, fewer and fewer Americans are waiting in line for anything 
anymore.
  As long lines continue to become an anachronism in other parts of our 
lives, voters' patience on election day can also diminish. If their 
patience diminishes, then more may choose not to vote, and that will be 
the worst result of all.
  We must realize that--much as they might want to--many local 
jurisdictions simply lack the resources to modernize their voting 
systems. One county in a State of the eastern seaboard has records 
dating from the 1800s. Of 890,000 people on that county's voting rolls, 
a recent study found that 775,000 were either dead or living someplace 
else. I will repeat that. In one jurisdiction, of the 890,000 people on 
the county's voting rolls, 775,000 were either dead or living in 
another jurisdiction. That fact, and others, underscore that voting 
recordkeeping and equipment is expensive and also outdated. That is a 
simple and unavoidable fact for many communities that struggle to find 
resources to meet the daily needs of their people for police, fire 
protection, trash collection, and other services.
  So I hope that as we move forward or toward the conclusion of this 
Congress and the commencement of the 107th Congress, and we all wait 
for January 20th, where a few feet from here a new President will be 
sworn into office as the 43rd President--during this time--and this is 
why we should do it now--we give serious consideration to the concept 
of a bipartisan commission to examine how we might encourage more 
accurate methods of recording votes by the citizens of our Nation.
  I also hope that such a commission would provide guidance as to how 
we might assist communities in finding the means to do so. This is a 
valuable role that we can play to assist these counties and local 
communities with resources that will enable them to modernize the 
voting equipment that they lack today. I look forward to working with 
the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Iowa, and others--I am 
sure there will be many more--who are interested in working on this 
issue and giving it some serious attention.
  Secondly, let me enter the discussion on the electoral college. My 
colleagues, Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Torricelli, as well 
as Senator Specter and others, have discussed this matter in the last 
few days. On talk radio, in diners, in taxi cabs, and anywhere you want 
to go, you can now get into a deep conversation about the electoral 
college. We have all become familiar in the last few days. Many people 
were unaware that Presidents have been elected by the electoral college 
since the first days of the republic. So there has been educational 
value to this confusion over who the next President will be.
  The electoral college is an arcane institution in the minds of many, 
but it has played a very important and valuable role. Certainly now is 
a good time to consider the role of the electoral college in electing 
American Presidents. I hope that we will proceed, as I said at the 
outset--with caution--on this matter.
  I would be concerned, frankly, about abolishing the electoral 
college. Those who have urged us to do so ought to pause, step back, 
and give some thought to what they have suggested. If you think it is 
confusing in Florida today, imagine the difficulty in deciding a 
Presidential election as close as this, with ballots in contention and 
people going to court not in one State, but potentially in 50 States? 
So while I think the electoral college may need serious reform, we 
ought to be careful about abandoning it.
  Notwithstanding the intentions of the Founders, many which remain 
valid, the electoral college continues to serve, in my view, an 
important function in our present day election system. While we elect 
one President for the Nation, it reminds us that we do so as a republic 
of States, not as a single political unit. Were we to elect the 
President solely on the basis of the popular vote, Presidential 
candidates would have little incentive, in my view, to visit with the 
people who live outside the major population centers. State boundaries 
would, for purposes of a Presidential election, be virtually wiped out, 
and candidates would have little incentive to learn from a State's 
officials and citizens about the concerns particular to their 
jurisdiction or State. So the consequences of abolishing the electoral 
college should be considered with grave, grave care. I am aware that 
there have been numerous proposals to modify the electoral college 
during the course of history. As I mentioned, the 12th amendment to the 
Constitution was ratified June 15, 1804. It represents one of those 
proposals and, today, the only successful one. One proposal was put 
forward in the 87th Congress, I might point out, by a Senator from 
Connecticut who happened to be my father, I discovered the other day. 
He offered it in January of 1961 after the Kennedy and Nixon election. 
He proposed then--and admitted there was nothing unique about his 
ideas; they were ones that were incorporated from the various other 
proposals that were suggested. So it was

[[Page S11523]]

not an original set of ideas coming off that election which was a close 
election as well--he proposed a system where each State's electors 
would be apportioned to the candidates in proportion to the candidates' 
percentage share of the State's popular votes.

  Nebraska, Iowa, and Maine do that today. In fact, States could do 
that on their own initiative. In fact, it would not require a change in 
the Constitution if the various States wanted to modify how they would 
allocate their electoral votes. Perhaps we should consider that 
proposal or some variation on it.
  As I said, there were many proposals offered. Perhaps we should also 
consider the two States that do not apportion the votes on a winner-
take-all basis: Maine and Nebraska. Perhaps we should consider--as 
Maine does now--apportioning its votes according to which candidate 
wins which congressional districts in a given State. That has had some 
value. In fact, you may recall in the waning days of this election, the 
Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman, my colleague from 
Connecticut, made a special trip to Maine to campaign in one 
congressional district up there that was close. It turned out that trip 
he made had some value. It was worth one electoral vote. If you 
apportion these either by congressional district or by how many votes 
the respective candidates received, I could see Democrats going to 
places such as Utah, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi--places in which we 
have not done very well in Presidential campaigns. I could see 
Republicans coming to Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Massachusetts where 
they may not get the winning margin, but they might get 40 percent, 45 
percent. So it is worth it to go after those electoral votes.
  Why is that good government? Because it is important that these 
candidates come to our respective States, learn about the people's 
concerns. It makes it more competitive, gets people involved; their 
vote means something, not only a popular vote but also an electoral 
vote.
  So I think reform of the electoral college, and there are a variety 
of other ideas, is worth while. But again, I caution against the idea 
that somehow abandoning the system would serve the best interests of 
the country for over two hundred years.
  These are important matters. They go to the heart of our democratic 
system, the electoral college, how we vote, how ballots are counted. I 
happen to believe we are going to come out of this in good shape. I 
know there are those calling this a constitutional crisis. It is not a 
constitutional crisis. The system is working. We are confronted with a 
unique situation, but the Founding Fathers and the framers of the 
Constitution in their wisdom anticipated there would be difficulties 
with Presidential elections. They set up a series of safeguards. They 
are not perfect. Some need to be changed, but they work. We are now 
confronting one unique in the two-century history of our Nation, but we 
will come out of this well. There are good people in Florida, good 
citizens who care about this, who will do the right thing before this 
process is concluded.
  On January 20, we will gather on the west front of this majestic 
building and we will welcome with good heart and good spirit and great 
cheer the 43rd President of the United States. That President will be a 
very humbled individual.
  There will be no announcements of mandates in this election. Maybe 
the American people showed their infinite wisdom collectively by saying 
by dividing this as evenly as we can, not only in this Chamber and the 
House, but the Presidential election, maybe you ought to try to work 
these things out; get together and resolve some of the outstanding 
problems we face every day such as a prescription drug benefit, a real 
Patients' Bill of Rights, improving the country's educational system, 
myriad transit problems, just to name a few. Those are the problems 
Americans wrestle with every day and they want to see us wrestle with 
them here and come up with some answers.
  They may have just sent us the method and means by which we will 
achieve that in this coming Congress by making this election as close 
as it is so no one can claim they have a majority of Americans' 
solution to this problem. But they did speak with almost one resounding 
single voice. We ought to take a look at the electoral process and then 
get about the business of going to work on America's problems. By 
making this election as close as they have, I suggest they may have 
offered us the opportunity and means by which we could do in the coming 
Congress what we failed to do in the one we are now winding down.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________