What does the narrow margin of the US Presidential election indicate about democracy, and in particular American democracy, to the rest of the world? It lends credence to Winston Churchill's comment in 1933 during the Manchester cotton producers scandal that democracy is the worst form of government except that it is better than the alternatives. It reminds us of the truth of John Locke's simple observation in 1689 that those who govern best govern least. It validates Edmund Burke's perception that "To those who become intoxicated with power, it is difficult to willingly give it up". It reminds us of the lingering influence of political machines, corruption, and the idealistic, almost innate belief among Americans that the law is neutral and can find a non-partisan way to solve political situations which should be settled more properly by voters and legislators.
The United States State Department issues many official declarations each year to urge various leaders of developing states to adopt democracy as their principle form of government, hold free and fair elections, and accept the results. Last week Russian President Vladimir Putin (who was freely and presumably fairly elected last March) extended an acerbic offer to send election observers to the United States. Leaders in the People's Republic of China seem very confused by the mechanics of electing a President in the United States. European heads of government seem more concerned with the results of the process than with the process itself. In the United States the contest extends deeper than a few thousand confused voters in Palm Beach County, Florida. It also includes close results in New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Oregon. It involves dueling daily press conferences, dueling court decisions, and the basic question of what is a vote and when should that vote count. Consider these positions taken by the Democrats and Republicans, and the conclusion is clear: Machiavelli was entirely correct: The ends (winning the election) justify the means (counting the votes).
Hand re-counting the ballots: Democrats say people are more accurate than machines because people can physically examine each ballot. Machines simply disregard the vote if the ballot is not marked clearly. Republicans say machines are more accurate because they are not affected by the individual bias of human counters who may seek a particular result. When one Florida county proposed machine counting its ballots a third time and hand counting the ballots the machines disregarded, Republicans complained that sending the ballots through the machines again would further damage them. This is the same argument (further damage to the ballots) they presented in opposition to hand counting.
