What has Election 2000 taught us?

As Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore continue to
harangue and harass each other over what the meaning of "vote count" is,
there are some important points we Americans ought to take away from
this election.

Especially important are the election laws and balloting procedures.
In short, they're a hodge-podge, mix-matched, blathering mess. They need
some mighty fixin', to say the least.

First, the federal government should mandate that all elections for
federal office be held with ballots that people actually have to
mark. If you get "confused" placing an "X" in a square, then
there really is no hope for you -- but also, there is no excuse for
making a "mistake." If you can't read, the election folks can read the
ballot to you. No "chads" to knock loose on recounts, no physical
problems actually punching holes in paper ballots.

Second, there should be no state court jurisdiction when it
comes to presidential and federal elections. In Florida, we have state
and local (politically-motivated) judges on both sides believing
they somehow have the authority to decide the fate of an entire nation
of 275 million people.

TRENDING: Montana lawmaker follows Trump's lead, moves to designate Antifa as domestic terror group

Wrong; what gives them that power? The federal government loves
meddling in state business and loves ignoring the 10th Amendment for its
own purposes; let it "interfere" now. Congress should tackle this issue
first thing when they convene a new session in January by reaffirming
what the Constitution says about electing presidents, at a bare minimum.

And speaking of laws, the joke that has become election law
"interpretation" in Florida is indicative of a wider phenomenon endemic
to all states, all counties, all cities, and most certainly the federal
government. That is, most laws written do not say you can do this but
you can't do that; they are so arbitrary as to be intentionally
confusing and therefore subject to the political whims of the judge who
sits as an "interpreter."

If we're Americans and we're supposed to be "all that," why then do
we need a judge to "interpret" most of our laws? If they were written
precisely and clearly in the first place, perhaps America could "retire"
many of our judges. Oh, and our lawyers, too.

Consider this: If legislators in Florida had simply written a law
that said, "If a few select and specific conditions are met, all
county election ballots must be in the Secretary of State's office by
such-and-such a date to be certified, period" -- there would be no Gore
or Bush "legal wrangling" going on now.

Well, OK, perhaps Gore would fight it anyway, but the point is
he'd have less of a legal leg to stand on than he does now.

Consider this, too: Why is it Gore's legal legions so easily
interpreted the "mandatory recount law" when it came to figuring out a
recount was called for automatically when less than a 0.5 percent
difference existed in vote tallies -- but these same Democrats, who have
over 500 lawyers "on site," can't figure out that the same law
calls for only one recount?

After all the actual fraud, suspected fraud, possible fraud, alleged
fraud, intentional fraud, perceived fraud, and planned fraud that has
occurred in this election, it's patently obvious we need to tighten up
our national election laws.

If states still want to use confusing and arbitrary balloting laws
and systems for local and state elections, fine -- you can always move
to another state. But on the federal level, there is too much left open
for abuse and misinterpretation.

And, as Florida is proving, there is too much at stake for all
citizens. Florida officials seem to be handling the Bush-Gore
fiasco as if it only matters to Floridians; it doesn't. What they do
there has implications for all of us.

Even if a U.S. president isn't the most important person in
the world, he or she ought to at least be the most important
elected official to all of us. We need to get this fixed, pronto.

Funny thing, though. The founders of our country thought they had
this worked out in the Constitution. They assumed we'd be responsible
enough and choose leaders who acted responsibly enough to ensure the
election of a president was clearly laid out and not subject to
"interpretation."

How naïve of them, huh? Or, how stupid of us to allow such folly to
subvert what once was an easily recognizable process.

We've had people figure out -- down to the last government official
-- who is "in line" for the presidency if no one else can serve. But we
can't seem to figure out who won Nov. 7. That's pretty sad for the
"greatest country on earth."

If future generations ever hope to survive, they'd better understand
1) lawyers should not be required to settle a presidential election; 2)
judges should not be required to "interpret" our election laws; and 3)
if we can't teach our constitutional system of election to fourth
graders, the laws are too confusing.