[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16736-16737]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         VERMONT HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT CONGRESSIONAL TOWN MEETING

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2001

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the outstanding work done 
by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this 
summer. These participants were part of a group of high school students 
from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as 
teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do 
regarding these concerns.
  I submit these statements to be printed in the Congressional Record, 
as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my 
colleagues.

On Behalf of Will Babcock--Regarding Trade Skills for Young Vermonters, 
                              May 7, 2001

       Will Babcock. Like I said, I'm Will Babcock, here 
     representing Youth Build. Skateland, from Williston, got 
     closed down recently. I'm trying to reopen it. I have plans 
     to talk to J.D. Real Estate to see how much the lease per 
     year is, and if I can get it cheaper for a youth 
     organization. Because, let's face it: In Burlington, there is 
     really nothing to do but play basketball, hang out at the 
     mall or hang out on the streets. So I think skating is a fun, 
     healthy activity. It is a good thing to do. I'm in love with 
     it, you know. Let's see. I have talked to everyone I can 
     about it. That is why I'm here today, to see if I can get any 
     help from Bernie or anybody with political power to get the 
     ball rolling, get it open again. I've organized a skate club 
     at school. I have got people at school doing it. All my 
     teachers are interested in it. And, recently, to go roller 
     skating, I've had to go to Lathem, New York, three hours 
     away. It is three hours away, four hours of roller stating, 
     three hours back. Because, you know, I can't really afford a 
     hotel room, so I have to come back the same night. I have 
     talked to Pat McGirk, the guy that got the skate park down 
     here by the waterfront started. I have been talking to him to 
     see if I can get something going there. I would like to try 
     and find some backers who think this is a good idea and want 
     to help me get it going. I have gone to a couple of other 
     meetings besides these, with churches and town halls and 
     stuff. So it is getting around. People are starting to hear 
     about it again. I'm hoping that it is more than just 
     ``hear,'' that people will start saying: ``Yes, I'm going to 
     help this kid do it. It is a good thing to do.'' Like I said, 
     I have support from Youth Build, Middle Friend and Family, 
     and everyone that roller skates, probably about a good 20, 25 
     of us. I need help in any way possible, so if you guys know 
     somebody that can get into an idea like that or anything, you 
     know, find out who I can ask for money, you know, for grants 
     and stuff. Pretty much that's it. If you have any questions 
     or anything.

                                  ____
                                  

    On Behalf of Richard West--Regarding Voting Reform, May 7, 2001

       Richard West. There has never been an event more 
     politically controversial for this generation than the 2000 
     presidential election. As the weeks progressed after the 
     election, millions of voters began to question the method for 
     choosing the person who will become the leader of the free 
     world. Is it fair? Is it accurate? Does it represent the 
     people? In a nation where less than 50 percent of the 
     population participate in electing their leader, questions 
     such as these could alienate people who at one time 
     considered voting from actually going to the polls. While 
     many people addressed various means for fixing problems with 
     the electoral process, no one has come up with a method that 
     would allow for a smooth transition between the ballot box 
     and the presidency. None of the methods I will outline below 
     is a perfect solution, but each tries to maintain the 
     tradition while minimizing the chances for errors or 
     misrepresentation. Method 1, electoral vote splitting. For 
     most of its existence, the Electoral College has not posed 
     much controversy, but periodic elections have shown that even 
     a system that works the majority of the time can have some 
     basic flaws. Many of those problems stem from the winner-
     take-all nature of the Electoral College system, where a 
     winner of the state gains all of the state's electoral votes, 
     even if he wins only by a small popular margin. The 2000 
     presidential election in Florida, where both Bush and Gore 
     received approximately half, 48.8 percent, of the electoral 
     vote, is a prime example of how the Electoral College 
     disproportionally favors the winner of a state over the 
     loser. Electoral vote splitting is an excellent method for 
     eliminating much of the sense of disproportionality. While 
     the system preserves the winner-take-all tradition for most 
     popular elections, it splits the electoral votes between the 
     Republican and Democratic candidates proportionally to the 
     percentage of the popular vote if the race is tight. Figure 
     1, which you have a copy of in front of you--and, hopefully, 
     everybody has a copy in the audience--shows generally how the 
     process of electoral vote splitting works. Since this method 
     only affects close elections, it is necessary to define what 
     a ``close election'' actually is. A close election is when 
     two primary candidates' popular vote percentages are within a 
     certain predetermined range. In this formula, delta is the 
     average of two candidates' percentages, the range is which 
     the blue line in figure 1 is slanted. If the candidates fall 
     within this range, then the number of electoral votes (E) 
     received by each candidate is given by the equation E=(P-
     Ave)ET/2+\1/2\Et, where ``E'' is rounded, except when the 
     vote falls within the error margin described below. If the 
     candidates do not fall within this range, the number of 
     electoral votes received by the winner equals the total 
     electoral votes, and the number received by the loser equals 
     zero. In either case, the sum of the number of electoral 
     votes received by each of the candidates equals the total 
     electoral vote (Et) of that state. One of the advantages of 
     this method is that it takes into consideration the 
     possibility of error or controversial votes. Many examples of 
     controversial votes were exhibited in the 2000 Florida 
     presidential election. A specific controversy was the sudden 
     appearance of 19,000 votes that had previously been 
     uncounted. These votes could have been legitimate or they 
     could have been fraudulent. This method deals with situations 
     like this similarly to New York election law. New York law 
     states that, if there is a controversy over a certain number 
     of votes, a candidate's winning margin must be greater than 
     the number of controversial votes. Electoral vote splitting 
     adopts this method by stating that if both fall within the 
     margin epsilon, then the electoral votes are split equally, 
     since it is impossible to determine a clear victor. 
     Obviously, the electoral vote-splitting method is designed to 
     accommodate two main candidates. The reason behind this 
     decision is that, for the past 80 years, only two candidates 
     (a Republican and a Democrat) have had a good chance of 
     winning the presidency. While it is still possible to have 
     three candidates in contention, it is unlikely this will 
     occur. If this does happen, however, the electoral vote-
     splitting method will not work, unless Method 2 (outlined 
     below) is also incorporated into voting reform. Method 2, 
     ``second candidate'' or transferable voting. Ralph Nader's 
     2000 presidential campaign has been criticized as the cause 
     of Gore's defeat in Florida. People believe that if Nader did 
     not run, then his supporters would have supported Gore 
     instead of them, and thus won Gore the election. Transferable 
     voting, used in France and other European countries, would 
     have given the option to voters of specifying a candidate for 
     their second choice. If their first-choice candidate receives 
     the lowest number of votes in a state election, he is 
     eliminated, but his votes are transferred to the second-
     choice candidate specified by his supporter's ballots. The 
     votes are recounted, and the process continues until there 
     are only two remaining candidates (see figure 2, which is in 
     the speech). It is these candidates who would then receive 
     the electoral votes through the electoral vote-splitting 
     method. Method 3, bubble and double-blind voting. There have 
     been many claims that much of the controversy surrounding the 
     2000 presidential elections in Florida was caused by voters 
     not

[[Page 16737]]

     understanding the ``complicated'' punch-card ballot. While 
     most of these claims were made by angry Gore supporters, 
     there are cases where these ballots are difficult to read. 
     For instance, if you are elderly and have poor eyesight, it 
     might be difficult to align a name to a punch hole. To 
     eliminate, or at least reduce, the number of errors caused by 
     misreading ballots, a simple ballot and a checking system 
     needs to be implemented. One possible ballot style could 
     mimic the SAT bubble answer sheets, formerly called Scantron 
     sheets. Each candidate's name and party is listed next to the 
     bubble that has to be filed for that candidate. These ballots 
     would then be read by a bubble reader, and the votes tallied. 
     Not only would the system be accurate, it would also allow 
     for quick recounts. Granted, the method is similar to the 
     optical vote-o-matic system, but the College Boards have been 
     using bubble sheets for years without any major problems, 
     unlike the optical vote-o-matic system, which has been proven 
     inaccurate by research presented in the Bush v. Gore U.S. 
     Supreme Court case. To increase voter confidence that their 
     vote will be counted correctly, a system of double-blind 
     checking should be established. The voter would first pick up 
     a ballot and vote, then scan it through a machine within the 
     voting booth that tells the voter the candidates they chose. 
     If the ballot is correct, the voter places it in the ballot 
     box; if not, the scanning machine marks it ``void,'' and the 
     voter goes to be issued a new ballot (the old ballot serving 
     as proof that they are not voting more than once). Since many 
     states feel their voting machines cause no problems, there is 
     no immediate justification for the expenditure of money to 
     replace working machines. As such, the federal government 
     should provide the money necessary for the implementation of 
     a nationwide standard of voting and double-blind checking, 
     and make each state upgrade its equipment so that it meets 
     this standard for any federal election. This would be 
     expensive, at first, to implement, but, in the long run, it 
     will cut back on the number of problems that are caused by 
     outdated equipment, and it would save on costs of staff 
     needed to count and recount ballots. While none of these 
     reform methods can be implemented overnight, by the 2004 
     presidential election, it should be possible to have at lest 
     a nationwide voting standard in action that allows for 
     double-blind checking. As for electoral vote splitting and 
     transferable voting, these methods would be harder to 
     implement. While both of these methods are fair and 
     relatively easy to incorporate into the voting process, they 
     would require a small leap of faith by conservative Americans 
     who maintain that the system is extremely good as it stands. 
     This statement is true, but the U.S. electoral system has not 
     changed much over the past 225 years, and thus little is done 
     to correct flaws exposed periodically. If these reforms had 
     been in place for the 2000 presidential election, the entire 
     controversy in Flordia never would have occurred, and Al 
     Gore, the popular victor, would have won the presidency, 272 
     electoral votes to 266 votes. Thank you very much.

     

                          ____________________