Some commentators have termed the event ridiculous. I believe it was extraordinary, but far from ridiculous, for democracy was on trial. We witnessed some of the great flexibility of the American democratic system and its ability to muddle through uncharted waters in tricky weather.
As observers, we operated within teams of four: two counters and two observers, with one of each pair from a major party. We had to verify the hole left by a punched chad next to each candidate’s assigned number on the ballot card, see that the card was placed correctly in each candidate’s pile for physical counting and ensure the numbers declared equaled those counted.
Incomplete holes, or those that had not been penetrated (dimpled chads), were referred to interestingly as pregnant chads. References to the Immaculate Conception were rife!
In the past, I have worked in some 25 elections, including as a candidate, in one local, one Euro and five parliamentary elections. One parliamentary election was decided, after several recounts, by four votes. The losing candidate disputed the rulings on some spoiled ballots and appealed to the first Election Court to sit in England for many decades. He lost the re-run by many thousands. His party then abandoned him to political obscurity. Even now, Al Gore may be acutely aware of such a phenomenon.
In many respects, American elections are markedly similar to those conducted in Great Britain. The key difference in Palm Beach County was the use of voting machines versus the penciled paper ballot, universal in the U.K. and still used in some American counties.
One problem with voting machines, like much of technology, is when they malfunction. In my old-tech, former Euro constituency of some 6 million electors, the count of penciled paper ballots (done by hand by bank tellers especially hired for the night), takes some five hours with each recount taking some 1.5 hours. The hand counting of machine punched ballot cards is far more difficult. Initially, this was not fully appreciated by commentators and false time expectations were raised.
Having had, as a candidate, to agree many disputed ballot papers, it is clear that some people tend to panic in the voting booth. In this light, some have criticized the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot" paper. Here, it should be remembered that this ballot paper had been approved by both major parties and was used in a prior election, without complaint. Voting instructions were also mailed to electors in advance, and notices urging a check on clean chad punches were posted at polling stations. In addition, we should accept that, while voting is our democratic right, it carries with it a personal responsibility to do so in a prudent and responsible manner.
Other than the technical difficulties of a hand count of machine-punched ballots, the only other major difference I noted was in the depth of clear party political sentiment.
In both our countries, party fever runs high, especially amongst candidates and party workers when a contest is close. However, in the 20 or so elections I witnessed in the U.K., some of which were very close, I never noticed or even heard a media accusation of party political bias entering the judgment of those within the official cadres controlling and ruling upon the conduct of those elections.
It was therefore very disquieting to hear such accusations in Palm Beach. I myself saw nothing approaching fraud, and I notice that no substantial evidence has yet been produced by either party, despite much talk and encouragement.
All in all, I believe that much of the ridicule surrounding the handling of the Palm Beach and other counts was misplaced. We should rejoice that the American court system was open enough to examine the issues in short order in clear view of the people and little influenced by party media spin. I also believe the American presidency, combining as it does the British roles of monarch and prime minister, is so constitutionally powerful as to offset any perceived weakening resulting from the length and style of the current electoral conflict.
I suspect that the methods of physical voting, the uniformity of such methods, and the deadlines and guidelines for scrutiny and legal appeal in future American elections will be examined at length by the next president and Congress. My key hopes for the future are two.
The socialist government in Britain is apparently considering offering an Internet ballot. This technology is wide open to fraud and risks turning our representative democracy into one of delegation. It would be a bad precedent.
Rather, we should bend ourselves toward both improving and monitoring the integrity of the voting system and look askance at solutions that promise merely speed or cost efficiency.
I hold to the view that the first phase of the English Revolution was our Civil War. It was stopped in its tracks by the timely execution of King Charles I. The second phase has been completed only on American shores, by the American Revolution against the abuse of power by the British monarchy.
Perhaps surprisingly, I am a staunch Monarchist within our parliamentary system, for reasons not the subject of this article, but which nevertheless are in order to protect democracy. Therefore, had I lived in the American colonies in 1776, I would doubtless have volunteered for service in Washington’s army.
I am fundamentally a great admirer of the way in which the Founding Fathers designed the political structure of the United States. With the introduction of: the election of the president, or king, a written Constitution and a Bill of Rights, the Fathers corrected many of the political abuses then prevalent in England. Interestingly, both Cromwell and Washington were each offered the role of "king," some 125 years apart, after the success of their individual phases (1 and 2) of what some now term the "Full English Revolution."
In their structure of democratic voting, the American Founders allowed both for popular representation, in the composition of the House of Representatives, and for regional representation by elections to the Senate, with two Senators per state, regardless of population.
Regarding the Electoral College, they are also to be admired. They appear to have noted that in England, their old mother country, a party leader could lose the popular vote but, with the support of a majority of members of Parliament, representing a regional constituency vote, they would be secured in office as prime minister.
The English prime minister was and remains an elected member of Parliament who is further selected by his fellow parliamentary party members as party leader and, commanding a majority of parliamentary seats, is then approved by the monarch as prime minister. It is somewhat elitist. This "final approval" by political peers represents a political goalkeeper, in that it prevents any generally unknown candidate rising to power as prime minster on a massive wave of personal popularity or hype, particularly one based upon a single highly populated geographic region.
In America, on the other hand, a presidential candidate could be a political unknown and sweep into office on a wave of popular emotion, worse still, one that is heavily regionally based. (Indeed, there is currently a movie that highlights this possibility in a hypothetical senatorial race.)
The Electoral College is a regionally representative group, based upon local popular votes, like the British constituency system. It is a type of hybrid of the representatives and the Senate. Furthermore, the college members do not, save in some states, have a legal obligation to vote their party ticket. Therefore, they represent a final brake, or political goalkeeper, in the American electoral process, reducing the chances of the election of a nationally unknown candidate to the presidency.
In the near future, critics may style the Electoral College as elitist. Ignoring its potentially crucial reserve role as presidential goalkeeper, some people may be tempted to urge its demise. I believe the abolition of the Electoral College would subtly but critically weaken a key potential protection of the political interests of the American people that was so cleverly installed by the farsighted Founding Fathers of the world’s first true democracy.
When all the cheap jibes over the current counts have subsided, most people will doubtless still acknowledge that America has an enviably strong and open democracy. I therefore pray that God will attend any coming deliberations the American people may hold regarding strategic changes to the democratic framework established by their Founders and which has served both America and the Free World so very well these two centuries past.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.