Expert panel looks back to 2000 for answers to future elections

By Larry Klaes

No one among the energetic gathering in the Kroch Library last Thursday, Oct. 28, had any more clues than the average U.S. voter about who would win the 2004 presidential election. But weighing heavily upon everyone's mind was what happened in Florida in 2000.

Walter Mebane, Cornell professor of government, seemed to voice the prevailing fears when he noted that despite a "clear intention of Florida's voters being for Al Gore" four years ago, many of the votes were not counted accurately or were missed entirely. This was due in part, he said, to the confusing ballots and the vote recount process after the election.

In recognition of the historic importance of this event and the processes that brought it about, the Department of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Cornell University Library sponsored a public forum, "Representation, Democracy and Electoral Machinery: Four Years After the Florida Vote," at which three experts in the political and social sciences discussed a variety of issues springing from voting technology.

The forum heralded the arrival of the Voting Technology Archive to the Cornell library. The archive, funded by the National Science Foundation, was the result of a collaborative project between STS and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. It documents the technological aspects of the contested presidential vote in 2000, with special emphasis on the Florida vote and recount. Some of the recently acquired collection is now on display in the lobby of Kroch Library as part of an exhibit titled "Get Out the Vote: Campaigning for the U.S. Presidency." (The exhibit can be viewed online at http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/vote.)

The experts and audience at last week's forum were surrounded by some of the items from the exhibit, including a voting machine with butterfly ballots used in the 2000 election in Florida, charts depicting the various Florida voting districts and original records from the recount effort.

"Cornell has the only Ivy League school department that seriously studies these items of history and scientific controversy," said speaker Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science and public policy at Harvard, previously professor of science and technology studies at Cornell.

Michael Lynch, Cornell professor of science and technology studies, gave examples of how some of the major players in the 2000 election, including former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and members of the U.S. Supreme Court, placed their faith in the machinery of the election process and actually put the burden of blame on the voters themselves. Lynch warned that although he was "not recommending that vote counters check the ballots without being monitored, neither should the voting process all be trusted to machines."

Looking at the role of the individual voter, Jasanoff said she was concerned that the right to an individual's personal choice in voting is being replaced by group statistics. "How do people still make decisions in an era of the diminishing individual?" she asked.

The voting booth, she observed, is a "confessional space" where people can express what is on their minds in terms of who to vote for and why. But even actions like polling voters on their opinions, she warned, can reduce the process to a group overview.

Polls, she said, also affect how people vote and even determine the candidates' campaign strategy. She gave the example of a recent New York Times poll showing John Kerry behind in Michigan, a result that sent both Kerry and President George Bush rushing back to the state for a second round of campaigning.

Organizers of the forum and the exhibit hope to increase public understanding at a critical time U.S. history, focusing on how the voting chaos in 2000 came about and how it can be prevented in future elections.