The Florida recount battle managed to distract many citizens from a story at least equally significant. The major media “call” of Florida for Gore – and then for Bush – exposed a herd-like media incapable not only of serious scrutiny of our democratic practices but even of informed coverage of political races. Drawing on identical data and obsessed with the desire to be first, the major media all marched lemming like off the cliff election eve.

Political reporting increasingly resembles sports coverage. Endless polls tell us who is gaining ground. Issue coverage is confined to discussions of who gains strategic advantage by the ways disputes are parried.

If politics is being covered as a horse race, one would expect the media at least to do that job well. Florida thus became almost as much of a badge of shame to the media mavens as a legal crisis for the Bush and Gore camps. Unable to resist the urge to be first with the call, major media twice gave viewers misleading information. Painful and embarrassed retractions occasioned promises to seek the causes of error and to do better next time. Unfortunately, most on-air commentary failed to convey the depth of the problem.

All of the major media based their calls on data supplied by the Voter News Service, a consortium established by the Associated Press and the networks to do exit polling and gather results from sample precincts. Through the 1988 presidential election, each of the networks maintained its own polling operation. Under the prior system, it would have been entirely possible that different networks would have made different calls on Florida. Or, seeing their rivals making other forecasts, some would have held off.

The VNS was created solely to save costs. Media analysts put the savings at around ten million dollars per network. For these savings, a tiny fraction of total network budgets, citizens pay a high price. Not only are the number of samples on which predictions are based limited, networks must also work from one uniform set of exit polling data.

Exit polls purport to provide some sense of why elections go as they do. But these polls can shape as much as reflect ongoing political debate. Such questions as “whether the economy or the environment matters more to you” are based on and reinforce the contestable view that these concerns can be neatly separated. I would argue that here in Maine, jobs that erode the fisheries, forests, and scenic vistas, our “natural capital,” may themselves not be sustainable. Other questions aimed at finding out when voters make up their minds reinforce the view of politics as an ongoing horse race. If networks did individual exit polls, there would be at least the possibility that viewers could be treated to wider sets of data and interpretation of the electorate.

Endless media coverage of this horse race has inadvertently exposed some real issues. The United States considers itself a model of democratic practice, but in many respects our nation is hardly voter friendly. The notoriously confusing ballots in Palm Beach County are symptomatic of larger failings. Tax forms are updated and uniform around the country, but ballots can come in many shape and sizes and formats. Elections for different levels of government are also seldom coordinated. The result is that just how and when to vote can be needlessly complicated.

The Florida recount controversy also exposes other deficiencies in the infrastructure of American democracy. Antiquated voting machines slowed the vote in many localities, and precincts where staff were insufficient or inadequately trained made it hard for many voters to receive help when ballots were confusing.

Some argue that voters have an obligation to study ballots and election schedules. Nonetheless, in a democracy election policies and procedures should strive to make voting as easy as possible. As Fordham political scientist Thomas DeLuca, author of The Two Faces of Political Apathy, has argued, “the real scandal of American politics is the low voter turnout.” DeLuca has proposed that our presidential elections be made national holidays or rescheduled as a “Democracy Weekend,” when more citizens could vote without facing conflicts with work.

The importance of scheduling issues became clear in another less publicized election eve cliffhanger. In Michigan, Democrat Debbie Stabenow defeated an incumbent conservative Republican, Spencer Abraham. One major factor contributing to Stabenow’s win was labor turnout. But labor turnout was not merely a function of typical get out the vote campaigns. The United Auto Workers (UAW) had negotiated Election Day as a holiday for workers.

What the UAW won for some, public policy should guarantee for all. With the American electorate working ever longer hours, electoral participation would be facilitated by at the very least making election day a national holiday. Unfortunately, we shouldn’t hold our collective breaths waiting for major network news organizations to do exit polling around ways to expand voter participation.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net.