I am not sure I agree with Rich’s article regarding doing over an election in Washington State. As far as I know, do-overs are disfavored, and if state law doesn’t specifically provide for them I am not sure post hoc where the authority comes from to have one. I am also not sure how an election administrator justifies a “do-over” for one office on the ballot – though I understand that it happens. If there is fraud, then that potentially affects every matter on the ballot. If it is important to “get it right” for one than it is important to get it right for others.

My own, potentially unpopular view on this is that given the “designed sloppiness” of elections, very very close races such as we see in Washington state, might be better seen essentially as ties. A do-over election is really a tie-breaker, but an expensive and controversial one. Litigation is another tie breaker, expensive and controversial, too. But maybe that’s all they are. Why not ask the candidates to play a hand of poker as a tie-breaker? As long as at the end of the day we know with finality who is governor, or congressman, or alderman, the election has served its purpose of peacefully transferring authority.

Elections do evince “designed sloppiness” and that means, at least to me, that technical perfection is just not going to happen unless we radically change them. Elections are administered for the most part by volunteers, many of whom are partisans, and getting people registered and to the polls is almost entirely the task of ardent partisans. Add bounties into the mix to “enhance participation” and you get financial, as well as political, incentives to cheat.

Here’s a radical idea – require all elegible voters to register and vote. Then the accuracy of voter rolls would be of paramount importance (how else to know who’s complied?) and partisans would be out of the registration and mobilization business. But I would guess most people reading this find that proposal distasteful.