The dust has settled, the election’s over, and the political parties have swapped governing majorities.
Fears about electronic voting machines didn’t fully materialize. Close races ended amicably. Candidates and voters alike seemed to exhibit relative calm acceptance of the results. Stories of voter suppression and other dirty tricks have been relegated to the back pages of the newspapers.
Chalk up 2006 as another successful exercise of our democratic rights. It’s hard to overstate the hype and attention that was given to this mid-term election, and the spotlights were shining hot and bright on local officials charged with ensuring safe and secure suffrage.
And to whom do these brave election officials belong? They belong to the Executive Branch.
Often we overlook the annual, biennial, or quadrennial voting activities as still another government operation upon which our society depends. This work, in its way, is just as important as any other key government operation such as collecting the trash, building and maintaining parks and roads, and fighting crime.
Applause is in order.
Running elections is right up there with playing in the high-stakes World Series. As an analogy, baseball works well. Many detractors of the game view it as slow and boring, as little outward activity seems to occur between pitches and hits. However, in baseball, whenever something does happen, players must respond quickly and accurately -- or else. All observers can easily see errors that are committed. Mistakes are exposed and multiplied. You must perform at the exact moment required and do so in an effective and competent manner. If not, everyone will know.
Remember Bill Buckner in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series? Poor Bill. I bet he’d give anything to field that grounder to first base one more time. But, alas, there are no do-overs.
Yes, elections are like baseball – the World Series – and the stage is set. Millions come to vote and they expect their votes to be counted for the candidates they choose. It doesn’t sound too difficult or complex, although the 2000 Presidential Election changed that calculus, didn’t it? That incredible event (infamous to some) seared in the polity’s mind a renewed respect for the importance of our relatively infrequent exercise of the voting franchise.
Let’s take our “hats off” to all those election officials and volunteers who provided us with an election that apparently went well across the country.
Perhaps the Virginia U.S. Senate contest is a good indicator of how well all players were accepting the voters’ voice and the integrity of our election process. Incumbent Senator George Allen conceded defeat yesterday (two days after the election but 18 days before the results are officially “certified”) after suffering a 7,200 vote defeat out of 2.3 million cast. This margin was well within the State’s “free” (for the challenger) recount range of less than one-half percent difference of total votes. Allen could have opted for a recount.
Irrespective of the closeness of this race, George Allen’s acceptance of the result demonstrated not only a respect for the will of the people but also of the Executive Branch that was responsible for the process.
Let’s hope the 2008 Presidential Election goes as well.
+++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 530 words.
© November, 2006