Miller

Q: In your book, you talk about the “ephemeral nature of reform, in general, and election reform, in particular.” Does that mean that the $3.8 billion Help America Vote Act (HAVA), signed into law by President Bush in 2002, is a waste of money?

A: I wouldn’t go as far as to say it is a total waste of money, but rather that it was, certainly, a premature expenditure based on political rather than factual or scientific sets of considerations. As I point out in the book, the exact nature of the problems associated with our voting systems, specifically as they applied to Election 2000, is not clear. We have much work to do to investigate those problems. Furthermore, we as a society will be facing some tough decisions based on the lightening speed with which technology is changing the way we do things. Do we want to continuously spend money on the latest equipment that becomes available in a never-ending quest for the best way to equally protect the vote? In an ideal world, we could do that, but we live in a world of vast demands with a limited amount of resources.

Q: The vast majority of states are not yet in compliance with HAVA, in that they do not yet have a statewide voter registration database. Where does Indiana stand compared to other states?

A: This was not something that my research covered. However, Electionline.org reports the results of a study by the Election Reform Information Project at the University of Virginia in its document entitled “The Business of Elections” that Indiana’s Secretary of State’s Office recently announced, in May 2004 I believe, that Indianapolis-based Quest Information Systems was selected to create the new statewide voter registration database. The fact that the company is located in Indiana may factor into the speed at which the job is accomplished. I do know, also, that many states are struggling with their attempts at compliance with HAVA.

Q: HAVA is touted as a “sweeping reform measure” by its sponsors and congressional leadership. What new measures have been put into place since HAVA’s passage that can raise voter confidence that the upcoming presidential election will not be a repeat of the 2000 election?

A: I do not see HAVA as sweeping change. While there have been measures instituted, they will not be without problems of their own. There is no way to protect all of the votes in society equally. There is variation in human activity and behavior that prevents it. People can help to alleviate this problem, though, by educating themselves as to how the process works. There is much information available to us to help ensure that we adequately navigate the voting process, but it is up to us to seek it out.

Q: There is speculation in the media that this presidential election could be so close that we might again have a winner who did not receive the majority of the popular vote, but did receive the majority of votes in the electoral college. Do you agree?

A: At this point in time, the polls certainly indicate that could happen. As of this writing, the two candidates are in a statistical dead heat with 47 percent of the vote each. I’m a firm believer, though, in not counting votes before they are cast. Polls have been wrong before. Furthermore, it is rare to elect a president by electoral vote majority and, therefore, the statistical odds built on America’s history of presidential elections does not favor this. In answer to the specific question, I would say that while it is a possibility, there is still much time left before Nov. 2. Pick your set of odds.

Q: One of HAVA’s most promising provisions provides funding to encourage greater student participation at the high school and college level. Have you seen evidence of greater student involvement on the IPFW campus this year?

A: I believe that the programs, through the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), for funding these types of projects are just now being implemented. The FEC is constrained by a limited amount of employees working on this task. Universities will be allowed to submit proposals at some point in the future, I’m led to believe. IPFW has been working along with the other public universities in Indiana in trying to improve the participation rates of our students through the American Democracy Project. As a member of the steering committee for that project on the IPFW campus, I can attest to the fact that we are taking this very seriously and have been working hard to get our students to become more active participants in the American democratic process. We have a disjuncture between what people perceive to be the role of government and their own lives. They do not understand that “We The People” translates into a government of, by and for the people. That means that each of us has a role to play in this society, and it is incumbent upon educators to help society learn that lesson.