Well, Franken is in the senate. I was tempted to write something about how we have now learned the important lesson that if you whine enough and file lawsuits you will get what you want. But then I realized there would be someone who would argue that Bush did the same in 2000. Whether that is a fair comparison or not, and I think not, it does point to one important problem. Both ends of the political spectrum share in some of our problems.

So, without mentioning specifics, I think it is time we looked at our electoral system again. I know we are both a litigious society and one which has given up on the idea of principles behind laws, but do we really want to live in a world where the party in power can use its office to gerrymander districts, pass laws allowing select supporters more say in elections, encourage fraudulent votes, exclude legitimate votes, and then, when all else fails, turn tot he courts to decide elections?

For example, how on earth is it "unfair" to require ID to vote? You need ID to cash a check or buy alcohol, yet there are those who argue it is too great a burden for voting. Clearly this is not an honest complaint, but the argument of those who know ineligible voters will favor their party over the opposition.

But do we really want to open the polls to all and sundry? Allow rampant fraud? One party or the other favors it at the moment because it helps them get elected, but they forget that what is used in their favor today can be used against them tomorrow. Today illegals may favor the Democrats, but what if a third party began to offer more than the Democrats were willing to promise? Would the Democrats be as calm about fraud if the votes when to the La Raza candidate rather than the Democrat? Because at that point it will be too late to fix anything.

They need to keep that in mind when they turn a blind eye to fraud.

Similarly, I know every candidate who ends up in court to settle an election thinks he is in the right, but whether he is right or not, it sets a bad precedent. I hate to say it, but we might have been better off allowing Gore to steal an election* rather than set the precedent of deciding every election in the courts. The judiciary was never meant to be part of the electoral process, and adding them to the process just adds yet another layer of politicization to the process.

I think it is time for politicians to do something unfamiliar to them and realize they too are citizens, and what harms the country harms them, even if it grants them momentary partisan victories. Vote fraud, judiciary decided elections, and gerrymandered districts all can be sued against a party just as easily as for it, and as it introduces a huge uncertainty into elections, it makes the whole process less just. In addition, by causing voters to lose confidence in the system, it results in dropping confidence and government and increases the risk of political violence (see "Misunderstanding Democracy").

The point is, democratic government works because it provides a peaceful way to hand over the reins of government, and gives the citizens a voice in the selection of their government. If they think the government is no longer elected fairly, they may resort to the previous solutions, such as violent overthrow. Even if they don't go that far, the loss of confidence in representative government carries many ills with it.

So, please, politicians, can you agree to a few simple principles? Elections need to be reliable, and to that end, we need to ensure every voter is who he says he is, is eligible to vote, and votes only once. Once we establish a procedure to count votes, that is it. The procedure, as written, will be followed, and once it ends, the decision will stand, regardless of the outcome. Districts should be designed after the census by a non-partisan group, drawing them as evenly and uniformly as possible, without thought of advantage for a single party or for incumbents.

Finally, there will still be situations where, even following all these principles, you will see the chance to game the system and take advantage of a loophole, but please, think of yourself as a citizen first, and instead of exploiting this hole, propose a solution and see it is removed. I know it sounds suicidal, but in reality, if you prove yourself honorable, you will get more votes from the unexpected honesty than from all the dirty tricks imaginable.

Not that I expect even one politician to take me up on this. Seeing oneself as a citizen first and a politician second is a rare perspective among those hungering after power.

------------------------------------------------------------------

* I am not saying whether Gore or Bush was the first to go outside of the established appeal and recount procedure here. Though I do stand by the many post-election recounts which, no matter how they counted, found Bush winning. Sadly, for such an important question, my memory is faulty, and I don't recall precisely who first left behind official calls for recounts and hit the courts. I do think it was Bush, who rightly objected to recounts of select counties. But, even though he was in the right, going to the courts set a very bad precedent.