PETER BUFFA -- Comments & Curiosities

OK, I’m back. Not tan, not fit, not rested. Just back.

For the first few days after the election, I was unable to speak, let

alone write. At some point in the wee hours of election night, I went

into a dreamlike state, vaguely aware of sounds and objects around me,

but not really sure where I was or what I was doing -- much like a

Florida voter.

Chad. Say it with me. “Chad.”

Even though we never knew what the little brat was called, we’ve all

known Chad for years. Ever used a three-hole punch? Of course you have.

You know the little white dots that spill all over everything when that

silver tray on the bottom comes off? That’s Chad. Now you know Chad.

Chad is not your friend. Chad is bad. Because who becomes the next

president of the most powerful nation on the planet is not going to be

decided by you or me or the semi-comatose voters in Palm Beach County.

It’s up to Chad. A little white dot is going to elect the president of

the United States.

Sound silly? Not nearly as silly as the pageant playing out in

Florida. If the manual recounts are allowed to go forward, here’s what

fully grown men and women in county registrars’ offices will be doing.

They will be holding ballots up to the light and trying to determine what

a voter intended by examining Chad.

By the way, Chad, like moose, is its own plural. One does not say

“Chads.” One says “Chad.” However one says it, Robert Nichols, a Palm

Beach County official, says that examining Chad is not as simple as it

sounds.

The Chad in Palm Beach County are rectangles, not dots. And some of

the furious debates raging in and out of court center on “dangling Chad.”

If you have “dangling Chad,” you don’t see your doctor, but you take

something called the “sunlight test,” according to Mr. Nichols.

Ballot examiners hold severe cases of dangling Chad up to the light

and look them over very closely. Dangling Chad will be counted as a vote

if it meets one of the following definitions: “Hanging Door Chad”

(hanging by one corner); “Swinging Door Chad” (hanging by two corners);

or “Tri-Chad” (hanging by three corners.)

However -- and this is very important -- Chad will not be counted as a

vote if it is either “pregnant” or “dimpled.” I swear to you, I’m not

making this up.

What is a pregnant Chad? No, not a Chad who’s going to have a little

Chad, but rather a Chad which is protruding, but not punched through and

through. A dimpled Chad is a less-pronounced version of a pregnant Chad.

It has an indentation, but not enough protrusion to qualify as pregnant.

Loopy enough yet? Oh no. We have only just begun.

One of the Gore campaign’s lawsuits was to get a ruling on whether

dimpled Chad should be counted as votes. Yes, said the judge. While not

pregnant, Chad with a dimple has as much right to be counted as Hanging

Door, Swinging Door, or Tri-Chad. What about pregnant Chad? Why leave

them out? Don’t ask.

Let us move from Chad, to the voters of the great state of Florida

itself. Of the many reasons why other countries are howling at us and our

electoral dilemma, none has received as much play abroad as the

“confusion” among voters in Palm Beach County.

Have you seen the confusing ballot in question? Each candidate’s name

has a big, thick arrow that runs from the name to the hole you’re

supposed to punch to vote for that candidate. It’s all laid out in large

type and graphics. Read name ... follow arrow ... punch hole. Next race:

read name ... follow arrow ... punch hole. Rinse, lather, repeat, et

cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And yet, late in the voting day and on Wednesday, thousands of people

complained that they were confused by the arrows and may have

inadvertently voted for Pat Buchanan.

Amazingly -- and this is really extraordinary -- virtually all the

people who complained were Democrats! As “proof,” they offered the fact

that Buchanan had gotten an inordinately high number of votes in that

county. Which means what? Don’t ask.

Some from the Village of the Dazed had an idea how to remedy the

situation. They’d be very grateful if they could vote again. Well

alrighty then! Why not? I can see huge advantages to this new approach

versus the old, outdated system of processing information with your

brain.

If there is a 72-hour cooling off period on credit purchases, why not

offer the same to voters? For 72 hours, you can keep voting until you’re

comfortable with your choices.

Certainly, there were voters here who were confused about Measure S

versus Measure T, or Measure G versus Measure H. Is it right to deny

their voices and ignore their will because of some arbitrary, outdated

system of voting just once? I think not.

City councils, school boards, water districts, sanitation districts --

can you really say that every voter knows who these candidates are and

what they represent? Of course not.

How do we know people didn’t mix up Christopher Steel with Christopher

Reeve? Karen Robinson with Karen Valentine? Heather Somers with Suzanne

Somers?

And you call this a democracy. The 72-hour rule is the only fair

solution. It’s ridiculous in this day and age for people to follow rules

that were laid down by a roomful of men running around in powdered wigs

and white leotards in Philadelphia 200 years ago.

So there you have it. Al Gore, George Bush and Chad. I have no

answers, save one. We ain’t done yet.

I gotta go.

* PETER BUFFA is a former Costa Mesa mayor. His column runs Fridays.

He can be reached via e-mail at o7 PtrB4@aol.comf7 .